Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

November 2001 WILDLIFE SERVICES

PROGRAM

Information on

Activities to Manage

Wildlife Damage

GAO-02-138
Page i GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Damage Caused by Wildlife Can Be Significant and Costly 7

Wildlife Services Conducts Operational and Research Activities to

Manage Wildlife Damage 16

Studies Done by, or in Collaboration With, Wildlife Services Staff

Have Found That Program Benefits Exceed Costs 27

Wildlife Services Research Efforts Focus on Developing More

Effective Nonlethal Controls 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 45

Appendix II Evolution of the Wildlife Services Program 47

Appendix III Program Expenditures, by Source, State, and

Activity 53

Appendix IV Examples of Injurious Wildlife, the Resources They

Damage, and Emerging Concerns, by State 58

Appendix V Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft Strikes 66

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70

GAO Contact 70

Staff Acknowledgments 70

Tables

Table 1: Annual Livestock Losses Attributed to Predators 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 2: Estimates of Annual Human Injuries and Fatalities in the

United States From Wildlife Bites or Attacks 12

Table 3: Wildlife Services’ Administrative Expenditures, Fiscal Year

2000 53

Table 4: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures, by State and

Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2000 54

Table 5: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures for

Agriculture, by Subcategory, Fiscal Year 2000 57

Table 6: Examples of Resources Damaged by Injurious Wildlife,

and Related Emerging Concerns, by State 58

Figures

Figure 1: Coyotes Are Responsible for Most Lamb Losses to

Predators 10

Figure 2: A Single Bird Can Cause Considerable Damage to a Large

Aircraft 14

Figure 3: After Capture, Raccoons Undergo Various Procedures to

Ascertain the Effectiveness of the Oral Rabies Vaccination

Project 26

Figure 4: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures, by Program

Category, Fiscal Year 2000 56
Page 1 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

November 30, 2001

The Honorable Herb Kohl, Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran, Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Henry Bonilla, Chairman

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur, Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

 Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Wildlife are greatly valued by the American public. Activities such as

birdwatching, hunting, and wildlife photography provide important

recreational, aesthetic, and income-generating benefits. In addition,

wildlife have important roles in maintaining ecosystems, and the mere

knowledge that wildlife exist is viewed as beneficial by many people. At

the same time, however, some wildlife destroy crops, kill livestock,

damage property, and pose risks to public health and safety. For example,

collisions between aircraft and birds put people’s lives at risk and cause

considerable damage to aircraft. Further, as the U.S. population has grown

and impinged upon wildlife habitats, conflicts between wildlife and

humans and their property have become increasingly common, making

modern wildlife management more challenging. The use of some methods

of controlling wildlife, especially lethal methods, has been a subject of

considerable and continuing controversy.

Wildlife Services (formerly known as Animal Damage Control), a program

within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, is tasked with controlling damage by wildlife,

primarily mammals and birds. To do this, Wildlife Services conducts a

variety of operational and research activities in cooperation with its

clients—federal, state, and local agencies; agricultural producers and

ranchers; private homeowners; and others. For example, on request from

individuals or agencies, it provides advice about managing wildlife

damage. In carrying out its activities, Wildlife Services considers and

applies what it believes to be the most appropriate methods—whether

lethal or nonlethal—of prevention and control.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

The Conference Committee on USDA’s fiscal year 2001 appropriations

directed us to conduct a study of the Wildlife Services program.

Specifically, we agreed to determine (1) the nature and severity of threats

posed by wildlife, (2) the actions the program has taken to reduce such

threats, (3) the studies Wildlife Services and others have done to assess

the specific costs and benefits of program activities; and (4) the

opportunities that exist for developing effective nonlethal methods of

predator control on farms and ranches.

Among the steps taken in our review, we visited Wildlife Services’ two

regional offices (western and eastern) as well as program offices in four

states; we also visited Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center

in Colorado and field research stations in Ohio and Utah. In each state

visited, we met with program clients, including farmers, ranchers, and

federal and state wildlife management officials. To obtain information on

costs and benefits, we interviewed Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service economists and discussed costs and benefits with Wildlife

Services researchers and operations personnel, program clients, and

academicians. As agreed with your offices, we did not conduct an

independent cost-benefit analysis of the Wildlife Services program.

Instead, we reviewed studies of program costs and benefits that were done

by or in collaboration with Wildlife Services personnel. Based on our

interviews with federal and state wildlife officials and representatives of

wildlife advocacy organizations—including the Humane Society of the

United States and Defenders of Wildlife—and on an extensive literature

search, these are the only cost and benefit studies that have been done on

the Wildlife Services program. See appendix I for a more detailed

discussion of our scope and methodology.

Although no estimates are available of the total cost of damages

attributable to them, some wildlife can pose significant threats to

Americans and their property and can cause costly damage and loss.

Mammals and birds damage crops, forestry seedlings, and aquaculture

products each year, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Livestock

is vulnerable as well. In fiscal year 2000, predators (primarily coyotes)

killed nearly half a million livestock—mostly lambs and calves—valued at

about $70 million. Some predators also prey on big game animals, game

birds, and other wildlife, including endangered species. Beavers,

woodchucks, and other species cause millions of dollars in damage each

year to property such as roads, bridges, dams, water drainage systems, and

electrical utilities. Seemingly benign wildlife, such as deer and birds, can

also sometimes be injurious. For example, accidents involving

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

automobiles and deer result in over $1 billion in damage annually, and

deer consume a wide variety of landscape, garden, and forestry shrubs,

plants, and trees. There were about 6,000 collisions between aircraft and

wildlife—especially birds—in calendar year 2000. Such collisions result in

not only human injuries and deaths, but also significant aircraft damage,

and cost U.S. civil aviation nearly $400 million a year. Wildlife can attack

and injure people, sometimes fatally, and can harbor diseases, such as

rabies and West Nile virus, that threaten human health.

Wildlife Services conducts both operational and research activities to curb

damage by wildlife. Generally, the program’s agricultural clients (e.g.,

farmers and ranchers) already have several nonlethal controls in place,

such as fences, guard dogs, and chemical repellents, to deter wildlife.

When these controls prove insufficient, clients seek assistance from

Wildlife Services. In these instances, Wildlife Services personnel determine

the type of assistance warranted, depending on the severity and extent of

the damage and the type of wildlife involved. Assistance may involve

suggesting additional techniques for controlling wildlife damage,

recommending habitat modifications, or capturing and/or killing animals

that are preying on livestock or causing other damage. The Wildlife

Services program spent nearly $60 million on such damage control

activities in fiscal year 2000; the program provided about $23.3 million of

these funds, and its clients provided the remaining $36.4 million. The

program also conducts research, such as studying the biology and

behavior of injurious animals or conducting experiments on reproductive

intervention—interference with a species’ normal reproductive cycle or

whelping ability. In fiscal year 2000, expenditures for research totaled

about $12 million. About 85 percent of the research funding was provided

by Wildlife Services funds; the remainder, by clients.

We identified no independent assessments of the costs and benefits

associated with Wildlife Services’ program. The only available studies

were conducted by the program or with the involvement of program staff.

However, the studies were peer reviewed prior to publication in

professional journals. The most comprehensive study, issued in 1994,

concluded that Wildlife Services’ current program, which uses all practical

methods (both lethal and nonlethal) of control and prevention, was the

most cost effective of the program alternatives evaluated. Other studies,

focused on specific program activities, have shown that program benefits

exceed costs by ratios ranging from 3:1 to 27:1. Nevertheless, there are a

number of difficulties inherent in analyses that attempt to assess relative

costs and benefits. Of most significance, estimates of the economic

benefits (savings) associated with program activities are based largely on
Page 4 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

predictions of the damage that would have occurred had the program’s

control methods been absent. Such predictions are difficult to make with

certainty and can vary considerably depending on the circumstances.

Considerable opportunity exists for developing effective nonlethal means

of controlling damage by wildlife on farms and ranches—for example,

through wildlife contraceptives or through the use of scare devices

triggered by motion sensors. In view of the growing controversy

surrounding the use of lethal controls, Wildlife Services scientists are

focusing most of their research on developing improved nonlethal control

techniques. In fiscal year 2000, about $9 million, or about 75 percent of the

program’s total research funding (federal and nonfederal), was directed

toward such efforts. However, developing effective, practical, and

economical nonlethal control measures has been a challenge, largely for

two reasons. First, some methods that appeared to be promising early on

proved to be less effective when tested further. For example, initial

research indicated that lamb carcasses laced with lithium chloride, a

chemical that sickens coyotes, might be an effective means of conditioning

coyotes not to kill lambs. However, while the coyotes learned not to eat

lambs, they still killed them. Second, animals often adapt to nonlethal

measures, such as scare devices (e.g., bursts of sound or light).

Wildlife are valuable to society in many ways, providing a wide range of

social, ecological, and economic benefits. For example, hunting and

birdwatching are important as both recreational and income-generating

activities. In 1996, according to the latest national survey by the

Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service,1

 40 million U.S.

adults (16 years old and older) went fishing and/or hunting and spent over

$71.9 billion on related items. Their expenditures included fishing and

hunting equipment, trips, licenses and fees, and books and magazines. In

the same year, nearly 63 million adults enjoyed “nonconsumptive”

activities such as observing, feeding, or photographing wildlife. These

wildlife-watching participants spent over $29.2 billion on related items

such as equipment, trips, and books and magazines. The total $101.2

billion spent by anglers, hunters, and wildlife-watchers does not include

related economic multiplier effects, or ripple effects, on the American

 1

“1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census, November 1997.

Background
Page 5 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

economy. Nor does it include the household income (salaries and wages)

of jobs supported by wildlife-related activities or the state or federal tax

revenues generated by such activities. For example, expenditures related

to hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities generated about $5.2

billion in state income and sales tax revenues in 1996, according to reports

based on the 1996 Fish and Wildlife Service survey.2

During the last decade, wildlife seem to have become an almost universal

object for concern, a symbol for environmental issues, and a focus for

resource management, according to a Cornell University extension

publication.3

 However, the publication also notes that actual encounters

with wildlife are frequently viewed as a nuisance or are associated with

damage and unwanted costs. For example, the coyote is one the most

successful and ubiquitous predators in the United States, and coyote

predation on livestock is a serious problem for U.S. producers.

In the United States, wildlife are a publicly owned resource held in trust

and managed by federal and state agencies. In general, the federal

government manages threatened and endangered species and migratory

birds, while the states manage big game and other mammals and birds.

Wildlife Services is authorized by Congress to conduct activities relating to

most wildlife damage situations. The primary statutory authority for the

program is the Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426-426c; 46

Stat. 1468), which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct

activities to control injurious animals. In addition, the program operates

under the provisions of numerous other laws, including the 1918 Migratory

Bird Treaty Act, as amended; the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended; and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The practice of managing wildlife is not new, nor is the control of

predators. For centuries, control of mammalian predators has been

practiced worldwide as a means of protecting livestock and enhancing

 2

See “1996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching,” U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, April 1998; “The Economic Importance of Hunting:

Economic data on hunting throughout the entire United States,” Southwick Associates,

Arlington, Virginia, 1998; and “The Economic Importance of Sport Fishing: Economic data

on sport fishing throughout the entire United States,” American Sportfishing Association,

Alexandria, Virginia, 1998.

3

Wildlife Damage News, Cornell Cooperative Extension Wildlife Damage Management

Program, Vol. 1, Spring 2001.
Page 6 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

game populations. The first recorded federal involvement in wildlife

damage control in the United States occurred in 1885, when a federal

agency sent questionnaires to farmers about crop damage caused by birds.

By 1915, the Congress was appropriating funds for federal predator

control operations directed at wolves and coyotes. In 1931, the Congress

passed the Act of March 2, 1931, authorizing the control of injurious

animals. Since then, federal wildlife control activities have evolved along

with demographic and societal changes. In the program’s early years, for

example, the emphasis was on conducting general eradication campaigns

that might be directed at the entire statewide population of a particular

species of predator. This operating philosophy, as we reported in 1990,4

contributed to decimating gray wolf populations in the continental United

States. As public attitudes changed, the program’s focus changed as well,

and it now emphasizes killing only problem animals when necessary.

Appendix II summarizes key events in the program’s evolution.

Today the Wildlife Services program conducts operational and research

activities. The operational activities are headed by the program’s eastern

and western regional offices (located in Raleigh, North Carolina, and in

Lakewood, Colorado), which in turn oversee 37 state offices, some of

which are responsible for program activities in more than one state.

Operational activities consist of technical assistance (e.g., providing

advice or loaning equipment to individuals who are encountering problems

with wildlife) and direct assistance (e.g., diverting, removing, or killing

injurious wildlife). Generally, Wildlife Services conducts its operational

activities in response to requests for assistance. The program coordinates

its operational activities with other entities, such as state departments of

wildlife, local agricultural extension services, and private animal removal

services.

The program’s research activities are headed by the National Wildlife

Research Center, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. The center has three

research programs: product development research, bird research, and

mammal research. Whereas most of the product development research is

done at the center, most of the bird and mammal research is done at field

stations across the country. To augment their staff of scientists and

technicians, the research programs rely on undergraduate and graduate

students, post-doctoral appointments, and volunteers.

 4

Wildlife Management: Effects of Animal Damage Control Program on Predators

(GAO/RCED-90-149, Aug. 9, 1990).
Page 7 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Program funds for both operations and research are provided through

congressional appropriations and through cooperative agreements with

clients—organizations and individuals—that seek the program’s

assistance. Wildlife Services’ clients include other federal agencies (e.g.,

the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of

Land Management, USDA’s Forest Service, and the Department of

Defense); state agencies (e.g., state wildlife divisions and departments of

transportation); county agencies and city organizations (e.g., parks and

recreation departments, zoos, and airports); Indian tribes; associations

(e.g., the Farm Bureau, livestock associations, and wool growers’

associations); animal advocacy and conservation groups; private

businesses (e.g., hotels and stadiums); and individuals. Some Wildlife

Services activities are completely funded by clients.

In fiscal year 2000, the program spent about $80.6 million in funds: about

$42.3 million in congressional appropriations and about $38.3 million in

funds from clients. Of the total funding, research spent about $12.2 million,

or 15 percent; operations spent about $59 million, or 73 percent; and

program administration spent about $9.5 million, or 12 percent. See

appendix III for information on operational expenditures by state, by

funding source, and by type of work.

People exist as only one element in the natural world. Increasingly, as

wildlife habitat shrinks due to human population growth and activities,

clashes occur between people and wildlife. These clashes take many

forms. For example, mammals and birds can damage crops and forestry

resources, deplete aquaculture stock, destroy livestock, and despoil

property. Further, they pose threats to human health and safety through

the spread of disease (e.g., rabies and West Nile virus); through direct

attacks on humans; and through collisions with passenger cars, trucks,

trains, and aircraft. The effects of injurious wildlife are not limited to rural

populations; suburbanites are grappling with how to best deal with

growing deer, geese, and beaver populations that damage property and

pose threats to human health.

Although they generate substantial economic activity, wildlife of all kinds

can cause damage, and that damage can be costly. Wildlife damage to U.S.

agriculture alone (including crops and livestock) has been estimated at

between $600 million and $1.6 billion annually, with over half of all

farmers and ranchers experiencing some type of wildlife-related damage

each year. Following are examples of how wildlife can affect agricultural

Damage Caused by

Wildlife Can Be

Significant and Costly

Wildlife Damage

Agricultural and Natural

Resources and Property
Page 8 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

resources, other wildlife, and property. Appendix IV provides, by state,

examples of injurious wildlife, the kinds of resources they damage, and

emerging concerns.

• Birds, rodents, deer, and other mammals cause significant damage to a

variety of crops such as corn, rice, sunflowers, and lettuce, as well as

berries and other fruits and nuts. The estimated annual losses of corn

attributed to wildlife exceed $90 million, and those of apples, blueberries,

and grapes exceed, in aggregate, $40 million. Deer and bears also eat

forestry seedlings and a wide variety of landscape and garden plants.

• Fish-eating birds (e.g., cormorants, herons, egrets, and pelicans) can cause

severe damage at aquaculture farms, eating catfish, crawfish, salmon, bass,

trout, and ornamental fish. According to a USDA National Agricultural

Statistics Service (NASS) survey of catfish producers from 15 states, 69

percent reported some wildlife-caused losses, with a financial loss of $12.5

million to wildlife predation in 1996.

• In aggregate, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, and wolves kill thousands of

lambs and calves each year. Livestock losses attributed to predators—

predominantly coyotes—are about $71 million a year, according to the

most recent NASS surveys. According to a Defenders of Wildlife

representative, these livestock loss estimates are inflated because they are

self-reported by livestock producers. The available evidence, however,

suggests otherwise, according to a Wildlife Services study.5

 This study

noted that surveys of livestock producers tend to underreport losses,

because reports emphasize confirmed kills. The study also noted that

NASS survey data typically report lower losses than other national

estimates. Table 1 shows the losses reported by NASS.

 5

M.J. Bodenchuk, J.R. Mason, and W.C. Pitt, “Economics of predation management in

relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety.” In: L. Clark (ed.)

Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Economics of Wildlife Damage.

Colorado State University Press, Fort Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed.
Page 9 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 1: Annual Livestock Losses Attributed to Predators

Livestock

Number lost to

predators

Value of loss

(in millions of dollars)

Cattle and calves 147,000 $51.6

Sheep and lambs 273,000 16.5

Goats and kidsa61,000 3.4

Total 481,000 $71.5

a

Losses of goats and kids were reported only for the three major goat-producing states: Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas.

Source: “Cattle Predator Loss,” NASS, May 2001 (data for 2000); “Sheep and Goats Predator Loss,”

NASS, May 2000 (data for 1999).

Various forms of damage compensation programs are in effect, at the state

or private level, for selected areas and selected wildlife species. For

example, several states provide some payment to individuals for damage

done (e.g., to property or crops) or livestock killed by certain species (e.g.,

elk, wolves, eagles, grizzly bears, and mountain lions). Additionally, the

Defenders of Wildlife has a compensation fund for damage caused by

certain species (e.g., wolves and grizzly bears) in certain areas of the

country. Generally, the programs require confirmation by state or federal

officials that the damage or loss was inflicted by one of the species

covered by the program. According to Wildlife Services officials, for

example, before an individual can receive compensation from Defenders

of Wildlife for damage caused by wolves, a Wildlife Services official must

verify that a wolf caused the damage.

Coyotes are the major predator responsible for livestock losses. Of lamb

losses to predators in 1999, for example, 64.3 percent were attributed to

coyotes. Wildlife Services personnel showed us how, by examining the

damage to a lamb carcass (e.g., a broken or missing trachea, the pattern of

blood clotting, and other indicators), they can often identify the species

that killed the lamb. Figure 1 illustrates the damage that coyotes can do.
Page 10 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 1: Coyotes Are Responsible for Most Lamb Losses to Predators

Sources: Coyotes attacking lamb, USDA; lamb carcass, GAO.

• Threatened and endangered species are sometimes at risk as well. Ravens

kill desert tortoises; feral hogs prey on several species of endangered

plants, tree snails, and forest birds; and Arctic fox prey on protected

Aleutian Canada geese. In Guam, the brown tree snake (a non-native

species accidently introduced to the island by humans) has eliminated 9 of

the island’s 12 species of forest birds and most of the terrestrial

vertebrates, killed many pets, and bitten many children.

• Beavers gnaw down trees, build dams, and plug up culverts, causing flood

damage to timber, roads, bridges, and other property. The monetary value

of beaver-related damage is also significant. In North Carolina alone, the

beaver damage management program prevented the loss of, or damage to,

$8.5 million in property during fiscal year 2000, according to a program

report.

In addition to their physical and economic impacts, wildlife can also

threaten human health and safety. Wildlife can harbor diseases that can

spread to livestock, pets, and people. Wildlife can also directly attack

people, causing injuries or death. Further, wildlife—particularly deer—are

sometimes the cause of automobile accidents. Collisions between aircraft

and birds are of particular concern, because such accidents can result in

serious and costly damage and, in some cases, injuries or death to pilots or

passengers.

Birds and mammals sometimes harbor diseases—such as rabies, bubonic

plague, Lyme disease, bovine tuberculosis, and West Nile virus—that can

Wildlife Also Pose Threats

to Human Health and

Safety
Page 11 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

be passed along to people through direct or indirect contact. (Such

diseases are referred to as zoonotic diseases.) For rabies, the areas at

greatest risk are southern Texas (coyote and dog rabies), central Texas

(gray fox rabies), and the northeastern United States and Ohio (raccoon

rabies). West Nile virus, first documented in the United States in 1999, is

now present in the District of Columbia and more than 20 states (primarily

in the East and the South) and has been responsible for the deaths of at

least 10 people. Birds serve as a host for the virus, which is transmitted to

humans and animals through mosquito bites. Excrement poses health risks

as well. The excrement of gulls or other birds that nest on rooftops can

enter ventilation systems, posing the risk of histoplasmosis (a respiratory

disease) to workers who breathe the contaminated air. Similarly,

especially in the western states, exposure to rodent excrement poses the

risk of hantavirus (a potentially deadly lung disease). The costs associated

with these diseases can be substantial. For example, the increased

incidence of coyote, raccoon, and fox rabies has resulted in estimated

costs of over $450 million annually for additional health care, education,

vaccination, and animal control.

Safety concerns are also an issue. With their populations expanding and

habitats shrinking, wildlife are more likely to come into contact with

humans. An attack by wildlife can result in a person’s injury or even death.

In August 2001, for example, a black bear broke into a home in a mountain

village in New Mexico and killed a 93-year-old woman; in 1997, a mountain

lion attacked and killed a 10-year-old child in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain

National Park. Bites or attacks from wildlife cause few fatalities, but many

injuries. While the number of fatalities from rodent (e.g., mice and rats)

bites is unknown, rodents cause about 27,000 injuries each year. Table 2

shows the estimated number of human injuries and fatalities that result

each year in the United States from wildlife bites or attacks.
Page 12 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 2: Estimates of Annual Human Injuries and Fatalities in the United States

From Wildlife Bites or Attacks

Species Injuries Fatalities

Rodents 27,000 Unknown

Venomous snakes 8,000 15

Skunks 750 0

Foxes 500 0

Bears 30 1

Sharks 28 2

Alligators 18 .5a

Coyotes 2 0

Cougars 2 .4a

Note: These data are extrapolated from various studies done in various geographic regions over

various time periods. They are probably understated because they exclude non-reported bites, which

could be quite high in number.

a

Fewer than one human fatality a year. Alligators, for example, cause an average of one fatality every

2 years.

Source: Michael R. Conover, William C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, and W.A. Sanborn, “Review

of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States,” Wildlife

Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 407-414, Fall 1995.

In other instances, wildlife have collided with automobiles, trains, and

planes. Each year more than a million deer-automobile collisions occur in

the United States, resulting in over $1 billion in damage to vehicles, 29,000

human injuries, and 200 human fatalities.

Aircraft collisions with wildlife are of particular concern, given their safety

and economic consequences. In calendar year 2000, about 6,000 aircraft

collisions involving wildlife, primarily birds, were reported in the United

States. From 1990 through 2000, wildlife-aircraft strikes resulted in the

deaths of about 140 people and the destruction of about 115 aircraft

worldwide. The economic toll has been heavy as well. Wildlife-aircraft

strikes cost the aviation industry more than $1 billion a year worldwide,

with costs to U.S. civil aviation (commercial and private aircraft)

estimated at nearly $400 million a year. For U.S. civil aviation, wildlife

strikes have also resulted in nearly 500,000 hours of aircraft downtime

each year. Effects on military operations are estimated at $30 million a

year.

A single large bird, such as a goose, can cause serious damage to an

aircraft. The average aircraft is designed to withstand a direct hit from a

bird weighing up to 4 pounds, whereas a Canada goose typically weighs 8

to 15 pounds. In September 1995, the U.S. Air Force lost 24 airmen and a
Page 13 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

$190 million AWACS aircraft in a strike involving Canada geese. Although

most strikes take place during takeoff or landing, some occur en route.

Pilots have reported strikes occurring as high as 30,000 feet. Gulls (which

weigh about 2 pounds) are a particular hazard, making up nearly one-third

of the reported strikes that identified the type of wildlife struck. In the

Great Lakes region alone, the ring-billed gull population has increased

about 20-fold over the past 40 years, according to a Wildlife Services bird

research official. In an August 2000 incident, a Boeing 747 airplane engine

ingested at least one Western gull just after takeoff from the Los Angeles

International Airport. The pilot had to dump 83 tons of fuel over the ocean

before making an emergency landing. The plane was out of service for 72

hours; the repair cost was $400,000. Figure 2 illustrates the kind of damage

a single bird can cause.
Page 14 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 2: A Single Bird Can Cause Considerable Damage to a Large Aircraft

Source: USDA.
Page 15 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Even small birds can be damaging. Starlings, for example, which weigh

only about 3 ounces, are referred to as “feathered bullets” because their

mass is so great for their size, according to a Wildlife Services official.

Starlings are especially dangerous, the official said, because they often

travel in dense flocks of many thousands.

All wildlife-aircraft strike reports are entered into the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) National Wildlife Strike Database, which is

managed by Wildlife Services. As of March 2001, the database contained

about 34,000 strike reports for the period 1990 through 2000. However, the

actual number of such strikes is probably considerably higher because

only FAA-certified airports are required to report wildlife-aircraft strikes.6

While non-certified airports sometimes report such strikes, Wildlife

Services estimates that the total number reported represents only about 20

percent of those that have occurred.

Certain unauthorized uses of airport land can increase the risk of

birdstrikes. In a 1999 report,7

 for example, we cited two instances of

landfills that had been established on airport land without FAA’s

authorization. Landfills attract wildlife and thereby increase the risk of

birdstrikes. In both of the examples we cited, the unauthorized land use

had continued undetected or uncorrected for years. Citing weakneses in

FAA’s compliance monitoring program, we recommended that FAA revise

its compliance policy guidance to require regularly scheduled monitoring,

including periodic on-site visits.

Although 97 percent of wildlife-aircraft strikes over a 10-year period

involved birds, four-legged animals were also involved in some: 418

reported strikes were with deer; 71 were with coyotes; and another 73

strikes involved turtles, alligators, foxes, or woodchucks. See appendix V

for excerpts from reports of wildlife-aircraft strikes.

 6

Certified airports are those that serve air carrier operations with aircraft seating more than

30 passengers.

7

General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for Improved

Oversight and Enforcement (GAO/RCED-99-109, May 7, 1999).
Page 16 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

To curb the damage done by wildlife, Wildlife Services conducts

operational and research activities for the benefit of various public and

private clients. Program operations and research activities are focused, in

large part, on (1) protecting livestock; (2) protecting game animals, game

birds, and threatened or endangered species; (3) protecting property and

crops; (4) protecting the flying public; and (5) reducing and monitoring the

spread of wildlife diseases.

Wildlife Services’ operational activities consist of technical assistance

(e.g., providing information, advice, or equipment to property owners and

others who are confronted with wildlife problems) and direct assistance

(e.g., diverting, relocating, or killing wildlife). Wildlife Services responds to

telephone inquiries from the public and has published booklets and

pamphlets to help people deal with wildlife problems such as a bat in the

attic, a skunk under a porch, or a bear in a hot tub. The program’s research

activities include both laboratory research and field experiments. Some

research investigates particular species’ behavior and biology; other

research is aimed at improving controls, both lethal and nonlethal.

The type of assistance Wildlife Services provides to a client varies,

depending on the situation, the location, and the species involved. In

response to a request for assistance from a farmer or a rancher, for

example, Wildlife Services officials will provide advice over the phone,

mail information, or visit the site and assess the situation. As appropriate,

officials will coordinate with other stakeholders, such as state wildlife

departments, other federal agencies, or adjoining neighbors. After

assessing the situation, officials may suggest the use of one or more

controls, including fences, guard dogs, harassment, traps, or shooting.

Once a course of action has been agreed upon, it is documented in a

cooperative agreement between Wildlife Services and the client. The

cooperative agreement specifies the work that will be done, the methods

that will be used, and the way costs will be shared. Cost-sharing

arrangements vary by state, depending largely on the demand for program

services and the availability and amount of cooperative funding.

Cooperative funding is a critical component affecting program availability

and delivery and is a key factor determining variability among Wildlife

Services’ state programs. For example, in some cases, a client pays half

the cost of services received; in others, counties pay for part of a Wildlife

Services employee’s salary, and that employee serves those counties. In

still other instances, an organization, such as a wool growers’ association,

collects fees from its members, who are then eligible to receive services

Wildlife Services

Conducts Operational

and Research

Activities to Manage

Wildlife Damage

Wildlife Services Manages

Wildlife Damage in Various

Ways
Page 17 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

for no additional charge. And in the case of threatened or endangered

species, a government agency (e.g., the Fish and Wildlife Service) enters

into an interagency agreement to fund control efforts to protect a certain

species.

The type of action Wildlife Services takes varies. In some cases,

harassment devices (such as noisemakers or bright lights) are effective in

deterring the presence of injurious animals. Repellents are sometimes

effective, as are devices such as gridwire (to discourage perching or

nesting) and fencing. In other cases, relocation is the best option,

particularly when a threatened or endangered species is causing damage.

But even when suitable habitat is available, relocation is not always in an

animal’s best interest, as relocated animals are vulnerable in unfamiliar

locations. They may fall prey to predators; they may be seen as interlopers

and killed by other members of their own species; or their unfamiliarity

with the new habitat and its food and water sources may result in severe

stress or even death. In many cases, such as with bears, a relocated animal

will immediately return to the area from which it was removed. And

moving a bear is no simple task, officials explained. Not only is a bear

large and heavy, it is also double-jointed and thus quite floppy. If

harassment or relocation is not considered appropriate to the situation,

depending on the species involved and the type and extent of damage,

lethal means may be needed to halt the depredation or damage. In such

cases, Wildlife Services officials strive to select the method that will kill

the bird or mammal quickly, effectively, and humanely. Shooting is

sometimes considered the best method.

Working with state and local agencies, associations, and individuals,

Wildlife Services conducts many wildlife control activities. Some of the

program’s major efforts include (1) protecting livestock from predation by

coyotes and other species; (2) protecting game animals, game birds, and

threatened or endangered species from predation by other wildlife; (3)

protecting property and crops from damage by mammals and birds; (4)

reducing the risk of aircraft striking wildlife around airport runways; and

(5) reducing and monitoring the spread of wildlife diseases to livestock,

pets, or humans. Both operations and research activities play a part in all

of these efforts.

This is a major area of program emphasis. The program’s control activities

are directed at selected animals or local populations in areas where

damage has occurred. When livestock producers find that the controls

Program Operations and

Research Activities Benefit

Resources and People

Protecting Livestock
Page 18 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

they have in place to deter predators have proven insufficient, they turn to

Wildlife Services for assistance.

Livestock producers generally use several nonlethal control methods, such

as guard animals, exclusion fences, and scare devices. In 1999, for

example, according to a recent survey by NASS, most sheep producers had

in place one or more nonlethal control methods. The number and type of

control methods in use varied from state to state, but certain methods

were more widely used than others. For example, half or more of the

producers surveyed in numerous states used fencing, “shed lambing”

(confining pregnant ewes to a shed during birthing and for several days

afterward), and/or night penning to protect their sheep. In three states,

half or more of the producers reported using guard dogs, and in two states,

a high percentage of producers (61 percent and 70 percent, respectively)

reported using guard llamas.

Although nonlethal methods sometimes suffice, in other instances they do

not effectively deter predators or may only postpone predation. For

example, shed lambing is often thought to be an effective way to keep

predators (especially coyotes) from killing newborn lambs. This solution,

while effective, is only temporary. Eventually, the young lambs must come

out of the shed and when they do, they are at risk of predation. In the four

states in which we reviewed Wildlife Services’ operations in 1995

(California, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming),8

 program personnel said they

used lethal methods in essentially all instances to control livestock

predators because livestock operators were already using nonlethal

control methods but were still losing livestock.

Further, nonlethal methods also pose problems. Guard dogs, for example,

are helpful in protecting flocks, but they are expensive—not only to buy,

but also to train and maintain, according to ranchers we interviewed. And

scare devices, such as sirens or spotlights, are generally effective in

deterring predators only for a limited time. Most predators—whether birds

or mammals—will habituate to any scare device that follows a discernable

pattern. Thus, although nonlethal methods have helped reduce losses, they

have not brought them to levels that most clients believe are economically

viable. For livestock producers who are already operating on a small profit

margin, the addition of even a low percentage of losses could drive a

 8

Animal Damage Control Program: Efforts to Protect Livestock From Predators

(GAO/RCED-96-3, Oct. 30, 1995).
Page 19 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

business into deficit. Livestock producers we interviewed said they expect

and can tolerate predation losses of 2 to 3 percent but could not continue

to operate with sustained losses higher than that.

For coyotes, Wildlife Services officials have found aerial shooting to be a

most efficient and effective means of control. It is, though, one of the

program’s most controversial activities. Funded through cooperative

agreements with individual ranchers or livestock associations, Wildlife

Services personnel carry out aerial shooting in the winter to kill coyotes in

areas of several western states considered most vulnerable to livestock

predation. Groups opposing this practice, such as Defenders of Wildlife

and the Humane Society of the United States, view it as a reckless,

indiscriminate killing campaign. According to representatives of these two

groups, the aerial shooting program kills coyotes indiscriminately; it does

not distinguish between coyotes that are known predators and those that

have never preyed on livestock and might never do so. These

representatives noted that they have no quarrel with the practice of killing

coyotes or other predators that are known to have preyed on livestock, as

long as killing is a last resort and is done in the most humane way

possible. Wildlife Services officials, however, defend the aerial shooting

program as a proven preventive method that is necessary to protect lambs.

According to Wildlife Services officials, the program is conducted in areas

in which predation routinely occurs and is timed to remove coyotes before

or during their mating season. The intent is to reduce the number of

coyotes that have pups to feed just as lambing season begins. The officials

pointed out that the aerial shooting activities have been shown to be both

effective and cost-efficient in preventing livestock losses, according to a 3-

year study by Utah State University researchers.9

Although Wildlife Services officials and farmers and ranchers we

interviewed believe that the aerial shooting campaign is instrumental in

preventing intolerable levels of livestock loss, representatives of

Defenders of Wildlife and the Humane Society maintain that lethal control

should never be a first resort; it should be used only after all nonlethal

controls have been tried and found unsuccessful. Representatives of both

groups expressed concern that Wildlife Services personnel in the field

tend to rely on lethal methods as the first and primary means of control,

 9

M.R. Conover and K.K. Wagner, “Effect of preventive coyote hunting on sheep losses to

coyote predation,” Journal of Wildlife Management 63(2), pages 606-612, April 1999. Peer

reviewed.
Page 20 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

without considering whether nonlethal controls might be effective in

preventing or curbing damage. A major concern of both Defenders of

Wildlife and the Humane Society, according to their representatives, is that

livestock producers are not required to have nonlethal controls in place

before requesting assistance from Wildlife Services. If livestock producers

are unwilling to take reasonable nonlethal steps to prevent or control

further damage, the representatives said, then those producers should not

be allowed to avail themselves of Wildlife Services’ assistance.

Program research has contributed much to the knowledge base about

coyote ecology and behavior, adding to the effort to develop more

effective nonlethal controls. For example, two recent studies sought to

determine whether coyote packs containing a sterile alpha pair10 would kill

fewer lambs than packs with a fertile alpha pair and whether sterile pairs

in the wild would maintain pair-bonds and defend their territories, thereby

excluding other coyotes.11 Study results showed that surgically sterilized

coyotes were significantly less likely to prey on lambs than were coyotes

with pups to feed and that they maintained their pair-bonds and territories.

During a 2-year period, 9 sterile packs killed 4 lambs, while 14 packs with

pups killed 33 lambs. Future research efforts will seek practical methods,

other than surgery, to sterilize animals in the field.

Other research efforts include developing (1) new capture devices and

restraint methods that minimize injury to captured animals; (2) new scare

devices; and (3) advanced designs for live-capture cages, rather than

gripping devices, to restrain predators. In addition, Wildlife Services

researchers are looking at ways of using radio-activated conditioning

collars (much like those used to train dogs) to modify predators’ attack

behavior. Researchers have developed a prototype animal-activated

electronic device and system, currently being field-tested, that repels

predators from livestock areas.

In addition to developing new control methods, researchers also evaluate

the effectiveness of nonlethal controls. For example, a study published in

 10An alpha pair (male and female), as the leaders of a coyote pack, defend the pack’s

territory from intruders (including other coyotes).

11C. Bromley and E.M. Gese, “Effects of sterilization on territory fidelity and maintenance,

pair bonds, and survival rates of free-ranging coyotes,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79,

pp. 386-392, 2001; and “Surgical sterilization as a method of reducing coyote predation on

domestic sheep,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, pp. 381-390, 2001.
Page 21 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

the fall 2000 Wildlife Society Bulletin evaluated the effectiveness of guard

llamas in reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep.12 The study found

that the llamas reduced coyote depredation on lambs during the first year

of the study, but not during the second year. The authors concluded that

predation may have to reach a threshold before guard llamas have a

noticeable effect on losses. The study also found that producers with

llamas strongly supported their use as guard animals for sheep. Based on

sheep producers’ assessments, llamas appear to provide depredation

protection similar to that provided by guard dogs. For example, llamas will

chase coyotes and will “gather” the sheep and place themselves between

the sheep and a coyote. Unlike dogs, however, llamas require little or no

training or socialization period. Also, llamas pose little threat to humans,

are relatively easy to handle (even without training), and may have a

guarding tenure longer than 10 years, compared to an average of 2 years

for guard dogs.

Various game species and threatened and endangered species have also

benefited from the program’s operations and research efforts. In rural

areas, hunting-related revenue is sometimes critical to the local economy.

Accordingly, a growing part of Wildlife Services’ activities involves the

protection of game populations from predation by other wildlife. The

protection of threatened and endangered species is important to

ecosystems as well as individual animals and is often essential to the

recovery of a species. As with game species, threatened and endangered

species can benefit not only from program activities conducted

specifically for their protection, but also from activities conducted for

another species’ protection.

Killing predators is often crucial to the survival of game species.

According to a 2001 study,13 for example, culling of coyotes in various

areas in Utah protected local populations of mule deer and pronghorn

antelope fawns. When coyote predation management was implemented in

one mule deer area, for example, fawn survival increased from 9 percent

to 42 percent. As another example, in one population of sage grouse in

 12Laurie E. Meadows and Frederick F. Knowlton, “Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce

canine predation on domestic sheep,” Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 614-622,

Fall 2000. Peer-refereed.

13M.J. Bodenchuk, J.R. Mason, and W.C. Pitt, “Economics of predation management in

relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety.” In: L. Clark (ed.)

Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Economics of Wildlife Damage.

Colorado State University Press, Fort Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed.

Protecting Game Animals,

Game Birds, and Threatened or

Endangered Species
Page 22 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Utah, annual adult mortality due to predation (primarily by non-native red

fox) was 82 percent without fox control in place, but only 33 percent with

fox control.

Many threatened and endangered species have benefited from Wildlife

Services’ operations and research. For example, for nearly a decade

Wildlife Services has conducted a major effort to reduce the brown tree

snake’s population on the Island of Guam and to prevent the snake’s

introduction to other Pacific islands. Since it was accidently introduced to

Guam 50 years ago, the snake—which has no natural predators on the

island—has eliminated 9 of the 12 species of the island’s forest birds and

most of its terrestrial vertebrates. Program personnel conduct brown tree

snake interdiction at Guam’s commercial and military exit ports. Since the

program’s inception in 1993, Wildlife Services personnel have captured

about 30,000 snakes near high-risk ports and have trained Jack Russell

terriers to detect snakes in outgoing cargo shipments.

Research has played a major role in the snake control effort. After

experimenting with various controls, program researchers devised an

effective trap, added an alluring bait (mice), and found an effective

poison—acetaminophen, which is deadly to the snake. Field tests

indicated a zero-percent survival rate for snakes that ate the treated bait.

Acetaminophen bait is currently used on a limited scale, under an

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emergency use permit. Wildlife

Services is pursuing a Section 3 EPA registration14 that would allow larger

scale use of this technique on the island. Wildlife Services has also

evaluated and registered methyl bromide as a cargo fumigant for use

against snakes, has conducted field tests on two alternative fumigants, and

is developing a delivery device for dermal toxicants that it found effective

against snakes.

Other threatened and endangered species have also benefited from

program operations and research. In fiscal year 2000, the program actively

protected 142 federal- and state-listed endangered and threatened species.

For example, the program’s mongoose control in Puerto Rico has helped

conserve the entire population of Puerto Rican parrots. In New

Hampshire, killing ground hogs that forage on the wild lupine has helped

 14All pesticides must be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and must generally be evaluated and

registered with EPA.
Page 23 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

protect the endangered Karner blue butterfly, whose reproductive cycle

depends on the wild lupine.

Various research efforts are related to threatened and endangered species.

For example, researchers are working to develop more humane, nonlethal

techniques for removing endangered wolves that are preying on livestock.

These techniques include tranquilizer tab traps to reduce stress to

captured animals and electronic collars to deter wolves from killing

livestock.

Wildlife Services conducts many activities to protect property and crops

from mammals and birds. For example, a key program emphasis is

eliminating beaver and their dams from areas in which they are causing

damage. Particularly in the Southeast, but increasingly in other areas,

beavers are responsible for millions of dollars in damage annually; in fact,

the resulting dollar loss from beaver damage may be greater than that of

any other wildlife species in the United States. Along with eliminating the

dams, Wildlife Services personnel usually trap and eliminate the beavers

as well. If the beavers are left in place, they will quickly build another dam,

according to Wildlife Services biologists. And for beavers, as for other

species whose populations are increasing rapidly, relocation is not often a

viable option because there are not enough suitable habitats available.

To control birds, Wildlife Services personnel often use harassment

techniques, such as devices that emit bursts of light or loud noise, to scare

birds away and discourage their roosting near fields or aquaculture farms

or in urban areas. Wildlife Services research has shown that after several

days of harassment birds are likely to seek an alternate roost. According to

researchers at Wildlife Services’ bird research station in Ohio, recent

experiments using lasers as harassment devices have shown encouraging

results with certain species. Similarly, Wildlife Services’ use of low-level

laser lights, in conjunction with pyrotechnic harassment techniques, has

been very effective in controlling gulls and other birds that were

interfering with the work of law enforcement personnel searching for

evidence in the debris from the recent terrorist attack on the World Trade

Center. The debris is being hauled to the Staten Island landfill, where it is

being examined by personnel from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

and the New York City Police Department.

In some cases, such as to protect crops or livestock feed from

consumption by birds or contamination by bird feces, Wildlife Services

personnel poison birds. Program researchers have developed several

effective poisons and have maintained their registrations with EPA or the

Protecting Property and Crops
Page 24 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And in still other cases, such as

with Canada geese, which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,

program personnel oil or addle (shake) bird eggs to interfere with their

hatching and thus discourage birds from nesting at that location. After

several unsuccessful attempts at breeding in a particular location, birds

will leave that location and seek another. A representative of the Humane

Society said that, while the Society has no objection to egg oiling or

addling, it strongly objects to Wildlife Services’ practice of rounding up

and killing geese.

Another key effort has been to reduce the risk of aircraft striking wildlife

at airports. In 2000, Wildlife Services worked at over 418 airports—a 15-

percent increase over the previous year. The airport operator (a city,

county, or private company) pays 100 percent of the cost of Wildlife

Services’ airport work. According to FAA regulations, a certified airport

must conduct a a wildlife hazard assessment if (1) an aircraft has

experienced a multiple birdstrike or engine ingestion, (2) an aircraft has

experienced a damaging collision with wildlife other than birds, or (3)

wildlife of a size or in numbers capable of causing a strike have access to

aircraft flight or movement areas. Usually, an airport hires a Wildlife

Services biologist to do a wildlife hazard assessment, which is based on

periodic observations of the numbers and types of wildlife on or near

airport grounds and the challenges posed by the surrounding habitat.

Working from the biologist’s report, an airport operator develops a wildlife

hazard management plan. For example, a plan might call for using truckmounted sirens to harass birds or for installing exclusion fences to deter

coyotes or deer from wandering onto runways. In collaboration with FAA,

Wildlife Services prepared a manual to aid airport personnel in developing,

implementing, and evaluating wildlife hazard management plans. The

manual, which FAA distributed to all certified airports in the country,

includes information on the nature of wildlife strikes, wildlife management

techniques, and sources of help and information.

Research contributing to wildlife control at airports includes studies to

determine whether birds and small mammals are more attracted to mowed

or unmowed areas of vegetation. These studies found that birds were more

numerous in unmowed plots. Also, the variety and abundance of small

mammals was greater in unmowed plots and increased over time, while

remaining constant in mowed plots. This finding is important because

small mammals are a primary source of food for raptors, which pose a

threat of aircraft collisions because of their large size and their habit of

soaring. Other research contributing to wildlife control at airports includes

research on the use of mesh bags of coyote hair as a repellent for whiteProtecting the Flying Public
Page 25 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

tailed deer, the use of amplified distress calls as a harassment technique

for birds, and the use of wires installed at various heights to discourage

birds from perching on top of signs and other structures near airport

runways.

This is a large and growing area of emphasis. For several years Wildlife

Services has worked in various parts of the country to control rabies. For

example, in 1995 it began an oral vaccination campaign in south Texas to

control a variant of rabies that had crossed over from domestic dogs to

coyotes; in 1994, 166 cases were reported in south Texas. From 1995 to

2000, rabies campaigns—involving the delivery of an oral vaccination

enclosed in a bait attractive to coyotes—resulted in the vaccination of

between 75 and 90 percent of the coyotes in the area. In 2000, there were

no reported cases of the canine variant in south Texas. The rabies program

is continuing in 2001, but at reduced levels.

In Ohio and the northeastern United States, another rabies control effort

has been ongoing for several years. Raccoon rabies entered northeast Ohio

in 1996; by the end of 1997, 62 cases had been reported. To halt the

westward spread of raccoon rabies, Wildlife Services worked with federal

and state agencies to create a vaccination immune barrier from Lake Erie

to the Ohio River. Wildlife Services researchers assisted by developing the

vaccine and its delivery packet. (The vaccine, encased in a small plastic

pouch about the size of a fast-food ketchup pouch, is in turn encased in a

bait cube made of fish meal.) Twice a year, in the spring and in the fall,

Wildlife Services personnel drop the baits from a small plane equipped

with a conveyer-belt-like mechanism that flings out baits at a rate of about

75 per square kilometer. In fiscal year 2000, the program baited an area in

eastern Ohio covering about 2,500 square miles. For several weeks

following the bait drops, Wildlife Services biologists trap raccoons for

examination and subsequent release. The biologists examine each

raccoon, take a blood sample to test for rabies antibodies, and pull a tooth

(the first pre-molar) for tests to determine how much vaccine the raccoon

ingested and when. The Ohio Wildlife Services office maintains a database

on the number and health of raccoons trapped and examined. In fiscal

year 2000, for example, the Ohio program trapped and examined over 450

raccoons. In addition to their rabies vaccination-related activities, Wildlife

Services employees provide technical assistance. In 2000, for example,

Wildlife Services biologists in Ohio responded to questions about raccoons

from more than 700 people and assisted with educational and training

seminars for local health departments. Figure 3 shows raccoons

undergoing procedures in the rabies vaccine program.

Protecting People, Pets, and

Livestock From Wildlife-Borne

Diseases
Page 26 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 3: After Capture, Raccoons Undergo Various Procedures to Ascertain the Effectiveness of the Oral Rabies Vaccination

Project

Source: USDA.

Other wildlife-borne diseases are also of concern. For example,

surveillance programs for West Nile virus are active on the East Coast, and

the virus appears to be spreading southward and westward. In 2000,

Delaware reported that four horses had tested positive for West Nile virus.

In 2001 (through October 15), Florida reported that 139 horses had tested
Page 27 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

positive for the virus. Wildlife Services personnel also assist in

surveillance and control activities for wildlife-borne diseases such as

hantavirus, bubonic plague, histoplasmosis, and salmonella.

We found no independent studies of Wildlife Services’ costs and benefits.

The relatively few studies that have analyzed these issues were done by, or

in collaboration with, Wildlife Services personnel. However, these studies

were peer reviewed and adhered to standards governing their design and

conduct. The most comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits,

conducted as part of Wildlife Services’ 1994 program-wide final

environmental impact statement, concluded that the existing program of

lethal and nonlethal controls was preferable to the other four alternatives

that were studied in detail because it was the most cost-effective, among

other advantages. Other, more narrowly focused studies found that

program benefits exceed costs, sometimes by large margins. However,

there are several inherent difficulties associated with studies of this

nature. For example, estimates of the economic benefits (savings)

associated with program activities are based largely on predictions of the

damage that would have occurred had the program’s control methods

been absent. Such predictions are difficult to make with certainty and can

vary considerably depending on the circumstances.

A variety of organizations, including environmental and animal rights

groups, have written about Wildlife Services’ activities and policies.

However, we found no independent studies that rigorously assessed the

costs and benefits of the Wildlife Services program; the only studies that

we found were conducted by or in collaboration with Wildlife Services

scientists and researchers. Nevertheless, these studies were peer reviewed

and met other research standards required for publication in a

professional journal. For example, to be eligible for publication in the

Wildlife Society Bulletin, which has published several of the studies that

assessed the costs and benefits of specific Wildlife Services activities, a

study must be either peer refereed or peer reviewed.15 The referees and

reviewers assess, among other things, whether a study has design or logic

 15The Wildlife Society Bulletin’s peer referee process entails review by an associate editor

and two qualified referees, selected by the editor. The peer review process entails review

by an editorial panel member who is selected by the editor. In selecting referees and

editorial panel reviewers, the editor considers their areas of expertise, affiliation, and

performance on previous reviews.

Studies Done by, or in

Collaboration With,

Wildlife Services Staff

Have Found That

Program Benefits

Exceed Costs

The Only Rigorous Studies

of the Program’s Costs and

Benefits Were Done by or

With Wildlife Services

Employees
Page 28 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

flaws that render its results invalid, biased, or questionable. Referees and

reviewers recommend acceptance or rejection of a manuscript submitted

for publication. Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the author

for revision and then reviewed again; sometimes a manuscript requires

several iterations before a decision is made about its acceptance. Wildlife

Services scientists and biologists publish their study results in other

professional journals as well.16

In addition to following requirements that are prerequisites for

publication, all Wildlife Services studies adhere to standards governing the

design and conduct of the research studies themselves. Wildlife Services

researchers follow the standards published by FDA and EPA. The degree

to which research must adhere to the standards depends on its purpose. If

research were related to the development of a new chemical product, for

example, the full standards would apply. On the other hand, if the research

were a field ecological study, not all of the standards’ requirements would

apply. The standards include requirements governing, among other things,

the protocol for and conduct of a study, the reporting of study results, the

storage and retention of records, and the humane treatment of any animals

used in the study.

Of the Wildlife Services’ studies of program costs and benefits, the most

comprehensive is its program-wide environmental impact statement (EIS),

which was peer reviewed and issued for public comment prior to

publication. An EIS assesses the biological, sociocultural, physical, and

economic impacts of a federal action and alternatives to that action. The

1994 EIS concluded that, of the alternatives evaluated, the existing

program was the most cost-effective, resulting in a favorable ratio of

benefits to costs, and offered advantages such as economies of scale and

nationwide accountability. The EIS was conducted to comply with

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which

created the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA requires that federal

agencies prepare an EIS for every major federal action that may

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA do not require a

formal benefit-cost analysis to be conducted. However, they require that

 16Wildlife Services’ study results appear in publications such as the Canadian Journal of

Zoology, the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, the Journal of Chemical Ecology, the

Journal of Mammalogy, the Journal of Wildlife Management, and the Journal of Wildlife

Research.

Wildlife Services’

Environmental Impact

Statement Concluded That

Its Existing Approach Was

the Most Cost-Effective
Page 29 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

considerations important to a decision among alternatives be identified

and analyzed so that the merits and drawbacks of the alternatives can be

compared.

Wildlife Services’ EIS, prepared by the Department of Agriculture’s Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service, addressed its ongoing program of

wildlife damage management.17 Its intent was to analyze the impacts

associated with the full range of wildlife damage control activities that

comprise its program. In addition, the final EIS analyzed the impacts

associated with several alternatives to the program. Originally, the

potential impacts of three program alternatives were analyzed in detail; as

a result of public comments, two additional alternatives were analyzed.18

The total cost of the 1994 EIS was about $3.5 million, according to a

Wildlife Services official. Scoping for that EIS began in 1987, when a

notice in the Federal Register sought public input on the issues and

alternatives to be addressed. The final EIS, which contained summaries of

and responses to the public comments received, was issued in April 1994

and revised in October 1997; it quantified benefit-cost analyses where

reliable data existed.

According to the EIS, the total economic effects of wildlife damage control

are composed of direct and indirect effects—on individuals who sustain

damage and on the public. Direct economic effects are those effects that

are caused by the action and that occur at the same time and place as the

action. For the current damage control program, for example, a direct

economic effect on individual farmers or ranchers would be the savings

realized from a reduction in livestock losses. For the public, the current

program could result in direct effects such as the savings realized and the

potential losses of life avoided by improving airport safety through the

removal of wildlife from airport runways or flight paths. Indirect effects,

on the other hand, are those effects caused by actions occurring later in

time or removed in distance from the original action, but still reasonably

foreseeable. For example, wildlife damage control on one farm could

 17The 1994 EIS, for what was then called the Animal Damage Control program, was

preceded in 1979 by an EIS that analyzed mammalian predator damage control activities

that occurred in 1977 in 16 states. The age of that analysis and the lack of a programwide

analysis contributed to the decision to prepare an updated, programmatic EIS.

18The draft EIS was issued in July 1990 for public comments, and a supplemental EIS—

which incorporated public comments on the draft—was issued in January 1993, again for

comment. In both cases, about 90 days were allowed for comments.
Page 30 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

result in decreased livestock losses on a neighboring farm or ranch, thus

benefiting additional farmers and ranchers. Further, by reducing livestock

losses, controlling wildlife damage could benefit the public because it

could result in lower market prices for agricultural products.

The EIS evaluated five alternatives for controlling wildlife damage: (1) a

no-action alternative, in which the current federal control program would

not exist; (2) the existing program alternative, consisting of technical

assistance, nonlethal controls, and lethal controls; (3) a nonlethal controls

alternative, in which the program would employ only nonlethal methods;

(4) a nonlethal-before-lethal controls alternative, in which the program

would use lethal controls only as a last resort, after nonlethal controls had

proven unsuccessful; and (5) a damage compensation program alternative,

in which the program would compensate property owners monetarily for

the losses they incur.

The EIS assessed the cost-effectiveness of each of the program

alternatives and analyzed the various economic impacts that each

alternative would likely produce. Specifically, the EIS analyzed, for each of

the alternatives, its direct and indirect economic impacts on affected

parties and its direct and indirect economic impacts on the public.

• Direct impacts on affected parties. This analysis considered the

impact, in terms of losses, of wildlife damage on affected parties (e.g.,

farmers and ranchers). The EIS concluded that the no-action alternative

would offer parties at risk the least protection from direct losses,

assuming that the current program would not be replaced by other federal,

state, or local programs. Under this alternative, where wildlife threatens

human health and safety, the affected parties would bear all potential

losses, including property damages and insurance and health care costs.

The existing control program, offering the widest range of choices in the

application of technical assistance and direct assistance methods, could be

expected to most efficiently minimize losses and risks. Two other

alternatives (a nonlethal control program and a nonlethal-before-lethal

control program), restricted by the methods permitted and their order of

application, would likely result in higher losses. And finally, the damage

compensation program alternative would partially offset agricultural

losses, but unverified losses would still be borne by the affected parties

and could become significant without a damage control program.

Moreover, this alternative would provide monetary compensation only for

agricultural damage; in regard to other threats posed by wildlife, such as

risks to human health and safety, the damage compensation alternative

would be the same as a no-action alternative. The EIS also considered the
Page 31 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

direct economic effects of damage control expenditures, and concluded

that the alternatives compared similarly.

• Indirect impacts on affected parties. This analysis considered the

losses and risks that would be borne by third parties. For example,

program activities that prevent the spread of disease by rodents and other

wildlife could have a positive effect on the costs of health insurance, even

though the individuals paying the lower insurance premiums may never

suffer direct losses. The EIS concluded that such indirect impacts could be

positive or negative, depending on the alternative considered. For

example, a lethal predator damage control program (one option under the

current program) on one rancher’s property could reduce the likelihood of

losses by neighbors, whereas a nonlethal control program might increase

that likelihood. For many agricultural producers, the analysis noted,

assistance with wildlife damage control can mean the difference between

remaining in or going out of business. Producers might not be able to

absorb either increased losses from wildlife damage or added costs of

control to prevent those losses. Either or both of these outcomes could

result under a no-action alternative, a nonlethal program alternative, or a

nonlethal-before-lethal alternative. The continued operation of such

producers contributes to the economies of their local communities. Local

businesses, therefore, are indirect beneficiaries of damage control

activities. For the damage compensation alternative, the affected parties

would be on their own in controlling animal damage; the federal role

would be one of compensation rather than control.

• Direct public impacts. These impacts mainly take the form of program

expenditures. The EIS concluded that the current program alternative was

likely to be the least costly to the public (with the possible exception of

the no-action alternative), whereas the nonlethal and the nonlethal-beforelethal alternatives would be more costly, because their damage control

activities would likely take longer and have lower success rates. At the

other extreme, the damage compensation alternative was judged to be

“prohibitively expensive,” with budgeted funds, in effect, determining

expenditure levels. In addition to funds for compensation, the

administrative costs of verifying losses and processing claims would be

considerable. The no-action alternative would not have an impact at the

national level unless damage control were undertaken through other

federal programs. If state and local governmental entities were to assume

animal damage control responsibilities in the absence of a federal

program, though, the costs to the public could be collectively comparable

to or even greater than the costs of the current program.
Page 32 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

• Indirect public impacts. These impacts were considered in terms of

each alternative’s effects on other governmental costs. If, for example, a

public airport were held liable by passengers for injuries resulting from an

aircraft collision with birds, the cost of compensation would be an indirect

effect. Such incidents could be expected to occur most frequently if no

governmental wildlife controls were undertaken (i.e., under the no-action

alternative or the damage compensation alternative) and least frequently

under the current program alternative. For the other two alternatives,

nonlethal only and nonlethal-before-lethal, clients’ satisfaction would

determine the ultimate impact. That is, if farmers and ranchers were

dissatisfied with the approaches used under a federal program, they might

demand more appropriate approaches by state, local, or other federal

agencies, thus increasing the costs of other government entities.

The EIS concluded that, in terms of both avoided losses (benefits) and

damage control expenditures (costs), the existing damage control program

was the most cost-efficient of the alternatives. The existing program offers

several benefits, such as standardizing approaches to wildlife damage

management and conducting and disseminating research leading to

improvements in wildlife damage management. Many of these advantages

could be lost through a no-action alternative. A damage compensation

alternative would provide some financial relief to producers for losses due

to wildlife predation, but would neglect nonmarket considerations such as

the health and safety of airline passengers. A nonlethal-only alternative

could result in clients going out of business, as many types of damage

could not be successfully addressed, and this would increase the costs to

clients who would need to assume their own lethal control activities. A

nonlethal-before-lethal program would be more time-consuming and costly

to both the program and its clients. Based on its analyses, the EIS

concluded that the existing program alternative offered a favorable ratio

of benefits to costs, even though the benefits and costs could not be

rigorously quantified.

Wildlife Services studies other than the EIS have also shown that the

benefits of wildlife damage control exceed its costs. These studies

primarily address specific aspects of the program, often in specific areas

of the country. For example, several studies concluded that the estimated

benefit-to-cost ratios for livestock protection from predators

(predominantly coyotes) range from 3:1 to 27:1, depending primarily on

the types of costs considered. Comparing the market value of all livestock

saved in 1998 with the cost of all livestock protection programs in place

yielded a benefit:cost ratio of 3 to 1, according to a 2001 Wildlife Services

Other, More Narrowly

Focused Wildlife Services

Studies Show Program

Benefits Exceeding Costs
Page 33 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

study.19 In contrast, comparing total savings (including a measure that

shows the potential ripple effect of predator losses on rural economies)

with federal program expenditures alone would yield a benefit:cost ratio

of 27:1.

Studies use several measures of program costs and benefits. Estimates of

the cost of livestock losses to predators, for example, vary widely,

depending on whether one considers only the value of confirmed losses

(market value of dead animals found, with predation confirmed by

forensic examination) or also the additional costs incurred by livestock

producers to reduce predation risk (e.g., the purchase, training, and

maintenance of guard animals; fencing; herders; repellent devices; and

contributions to private or public predation management programs such

as aerial shooting campaigns). These additional costs are significant, and

can equal or exceed the cost of predation.

The studies discuss various benefits of managing predation. In addition to

preventing agricultural losses, predation management activities can

provide other substantial benefits. For example, predation management is

important for the protection of game animals when their populations are

reduced in relation to available habitat. Also, predation management is

essential for the successful restoration of threatened and endangered

species.

Some benefits of the program’s operations and research activities accrue

to society at large, such as activities undertaken to reduce risks to public

health and safety, and are cost effective as well, according to a recent

economic study.20 For example, the benefits of controlling the spread of

raccoon rabies greatly outweigh the costs. This study analyzed the benefits

and costs associated with a hypothetical rabies barrier that would stretch

from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico. The barrier would be a combination

of natural geographic features (the Appalachian Mountains) and oral

 19M.J. Bodenchuk, J.R. Mason, and W.C. Pitt, “Economics of predation management in

relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety.” In: L. Clark (ed.)

Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Economics of Wildlife Damage.

Colorado State University Press, Fort Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed.

20Philip Kemere, Michael K. Liddel, Phylo Evangelou, Dennis Slate, and Steven Osmek,

“Economic Analysis of a Large Scale Oral Vaccination Program to Control Raccoon

Rabies.” (Paper delivered at a Wildlife Services’ symposium, “Human Conflicts with

Wildlife: Economic Considerations,” in Fort Collins, Colorado, Aug. 1-3, 2000.) Peer

reviewed.
Page 34 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

vaccination zones. The goal of the barrier would be to prevent the raccoon

rabies variant from moving west into broader geographic regions of the

United States. The study compared the costs of establishing and

maintaining this hypothetical barrier with the benefits (avoided costs) of

not having to live with raccoon rabies west of its current distribution. The

costs of establishing and maintaining an immune barrier include

expenditures for baits, distribution of baits, and program evaluation.

Benefits are viewed as all costs, including direct medical and nonmedical

costs, that would be avoided as a result of the proposed oral rabies

vaccination program. Such costs include the costs of public education

regarding raccoon rabies, pre-exposure vaccinations and post-exposure

treatments, increased compliance rates for dog and cat vaccinations,

increased local animal control and surveillance activities, and increased

laboratory staff and supplies.

The study, based on four variations of an economic model, concluded that

a large-scale oral rabies vaccination program should be economically

feasible, given the program costs and the avoided costs. The total

discounted program cost, over a 20-year period, would be about $95.7

million, and the net benefits (avoided costs minus program costs) of the

four model variations would range from $109 million to $496 million,

depending on the assumptions employed (i.e., the assumed rate at which

the rabies variant would travel and whether animal vaccinations were

included or excluded). To test the robustness of the model (i.e., how

stable its estimates were in reaction to changes in the range of data used),

the study’s economists used a sampling technique known as Monte Carlo,

in which they generated a random data set based on specific probability

distributions for the data (e.g., barrier area, bait density, bait cost, and

aerial distribution cost). The data set was then used in the model, and the

resulting variation in the model’s estimates was low, indicating that the

model was stable, or robust. Accordingly, the study concluded that the net

economic benefits, in terms of avoided costs due to the oral rabies

vaccination program, would be substantial.

The type of resource, or animal, protected affects the costs and benefits of

damage control. Values for threatened or endangered species have been

declared “incalculable.”

21 Nevertheless, according to the 2001 study by

 21See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 187 (1978)(stating “the plain language

of the [Endangered Species] Act, buttressed by its legislative history, shows clearly that

Congress viewed the value of endangered species as ‘incalculable’”).
Page 35 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Bodenchuk et al., such species’ minimum values can be estimated from the

funds expended for their restoration. For example, black-footed ferret

populations are severely affected by coyote predation, especially following

restoration efforts. In studies of restoration success in South Dakota, 30-

day survival rates for ferrets averaged 31 percent in the absence of

predation management, but 67 percent with predation management in

place. Based on an introduction of 50 ferrets, about 18 ferrets would be

saved with predation management in place, resulting in a financial benefit

of about $524,000. This benefit was calculated using an average individual

value of $29,000 per ferret. The individual value was, in turn, calculated by

dividing the total reintroduction expenditures in one year ($2,913,220) by

the estimated number of individual ferrets in the wild (100).

Because of the nature of cost-benefit studies in general, their results

should be viewed with some caution. Inherent difficulties bedevil any

attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of a program designed to

prevent damage. Key among these difficulties are (1) projecting the degree

of losses that would have occurred absent the program, (2) valuing those

losses, and (3) valuing the program benefits. Moreover, in some instances,

the relevancy of data available for quantifying the costs and benefits

associated with Wildlife Services activities may be limited by the data’s

age.

Predictions of the degree of loss that would have occurred had Wildlife

Services’ control methods not been in place are difficult to make with any

certainty and vary considerably depending on the circumstances. For

example, few data exist on livestock losses in the absence of controls.

Livestock producers generally have not one control, but a combination of

several, in place, such as guard animals, fences, herders, and repellent

devices. Yet livestock are taken by predators despite these controls. So the

degree of loss that producers would have suffered had they not had

controls in place can only be estimated.

Predictions about the degree of loss are further complicated by the

difficulty in distinguishing between the relative contributions of program

activities versus other factors such as weather, disease, or natural

fluctuations in predator and prey populations. For example, according to a

Several Caveats Are

Associated With Wildlife

Services’ Cost and Benefit

Studies

Predicting the Degree of Losses
Page 36 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

September 1999 study on coyote depredation control,22 various interrelated

factors influence coyote depredation rates on sheep, including coyote

density (e.g., pack size, territory size, and number of coyotes per territory)

and the abundance of alternative prey. According to the study, research

has shown that coyote predation rates on sheep are closely related to the

abundance of natural prey, such as rodents and jackrabbits. A 6-year study

in Idaho,23 for example, showed that predation rates on sheep increased in

proportion to changes in the abundance of jackrabbits. When the hare

population collapsed, and the coyotes had no alternative food source, their

depredation on sheep escalated dramatically.

The uneven distribution of damage poses a particular difficulty in

predicting losses. That is, although average losses to predators are small

compared to overall losses from other causes, such as weather and

disease, the damages are not evenly distributed over time or over area. A

small proportion of producers absorb high losses, whereas the vast

majority of producers sustain less serious economic damage. Thus, using a

single average statistic to infer overall program effectiveness would not

accurately reflect the distributional variations. For ranchers who are

already operating on a small profit margin, additional losses of even a few

percentage points could drive their businesses into deficit.

The value of losses is difficult to estimate for several reasons. For

example, the value of livestock changes with the daily fluctuations in

market values. Further, the loss of a pregnant ewe is not simply the loss of

that animal, but also the loss of the unborn lamb, as well as any future

offspring.

Inherent difficulties also exist in the valuation of wildlife. As species,

wildlife have positive value for society, but the specific individuals that

cause damage and thus, economic losses, have negative value for livestock

producers and others who sustain damage. Although the intrinsic value of

wildlife is difficult to quantify, the economic value of wildlife can be

estimated from the dollar values that wildlife management agencies place

 22Frederick F. Knowlton, Eric M. Gese, and Michael M. Jaeger, “Coyote depredation

control: An interface between biology and management,” Journal of Range Management

52(5), pp. 398-412, September 1999.

23L. Charles Stoddart, Richard E. Griffiths, and Frederick F. Knowlton, “Coyote responses

to changing jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation,” Journal of Range Management

54(1), pp. 15-20, January 2001.

Valuing Losses
Page 37 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

on them, according to a 2001 Wildlife Services study.24 For many common

game species, for example, state departments of fisheries and wildlife have

established economic values based on estimates of the species’

contributions to the economy. These economic values serve as the basis

for civil financial penalties assessed as mitigation for illegal poaching or

wildlife kills that result from environmental contamination. For example,

according to the study, the weighted average civil penalties assessed for

illegally killing wildlife ranged from $26 for an upland game bird to $1,312

for a bighorn sheep. The penalty for taking a mule deer was $350; a

pronghorn, $400.

Estimates of the value of benefits (avoided costs) also cannot be made

with certainty. Estimating the value of controlling wildlife at airports, for

example, entails making assumptions about not only the number and

severity of wildlife-aircraft collisions that would occur without the

program in place, but also about the cost associated with repairs, medical

treatment, and loss of human life.

Some groups that take issue with Wildlife Services activities suggest that

its programs are not cost-effective because the money spent on livestock

protection exceeds the value of the losses to ranchers and others.

However, Wildlife Services officials believe that it is misleading to focus

only on the value of losses that occur with a control program in place and

to disregard the value of the damage that is prevented by the program.

They compared this type of analysis to having a fire department that costs

$10 million a year to operate and keeps fire damage in a community down

to $2 million a year in losses. Rather than saying that the department is not

worth its cost because losses due to fire damage were only a fraction of

the cost of operating the fire department, consideration should be given to

what the losses would have been without a fire department.

The age of the various cost-benefit studies, and the data upon which they

were based, may pose yet another limitation, in terms of both relevance

and scope. The environmental impact statement, for example, was based

on data that are now over a decade old and may not reflect current

conditions. For example, the EIS did not include analyses of the whitetailed deer and the resident Canada goose, both of which have become

 24M.J. Bodenchuk, J.R. Mason, and W.C. Pitt, “Economics of predation management in

relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety.” In: L. Clark (ed.)

Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Economics of Wildlife Damage.

Colorado State University Press, Fort Collins, Colorado. In press, 2001. Peer reviewed.

Valuing Program Benefits

Relevance of Data
Page 38 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

increasingly problematic. Some of the other, more narrow, studies we

reviewed were also based on old data.

Wildlife Services has requested funding to update the EIS. The EIS

primarily used fiscal year 1988 data to provide a comparable baseline

against which to evaluate each alternative. If funded, work on the

supplemental EIS would likely start next year and would be expected to

take about 3 years to complete. The supplemental EIS would incorporate

information on new wildlife management techniques that have been

introduced since the early 1990s. Program officials also plan to study and

incorporate into the supplemental EIS information on aquaculture

depredation issues and on overabundant animals such as white-tailed

deer, resident Canada geese, and blackbirds.

Wildlife Services researchers believe that considerable potential exists for

developing more effective nonlethal controls of wildlife damage through

the use of new and improved technologies. In light of the controversy

surrounding lethal controls, Wildlife Services devotes most of its research

efforts toward this end. Past efforts to develop effective and economical

nonlethal controls, however, have met with limited success. Although

Wildlife Services research has developed several nonlethal controls that

are used on many farms and ranches, these controls have not limited

livestock losses to the point where lethal controls are no longer needed.

The National Wildlife Research Center conducts research and provides

information on a range of methods for managing wildlife damage.

Considerable opportunity exists for developing more effective nonlethal

means of controlling predators on farms and ranches—for example,

through wildlife contraceptives or through the use of scare devices

triggered by motion sensors. In fiscal year 2000, about $9 million (75

percent) of the program’s total research funding was spent on efforts

related to developing or improving nonlethal controls. A National Wildlife

Research Center program manager noted that scientists feel considerable

pressure to research and quickly develop nonlethal control methods. The

manager noted that the pressure comes not only from animal advocacy

groups and personal preferences, but also from a changing environment

where experts in the field see the loss or diminishing acceptance of

traditional control tools like guns, traps, and poisons. Nevertheless,

funding levels have remained static for the past several years, hampering

the center’s ability to conduct additional research projects.

Wildlife Services

Research Efforts

Focus on Developing

More Effective

Nonlethal Controls

Opportunities Exist for

Developing More Effective

Nonlethal Control

Measures
Page 39 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

The center generally has about 19 projects underway in such areas as

wildlife contraceptives, wildlife repellents, rodent control methods, and

analytical chemistry methodology. Most of the projects are multi-year

efforts of 3 to 5 years’ duration.25 According to the center’s product

development manager, research projects dealing with reproductive

controls are particularly promising. A goal of these projects is to develop

and field-test economical and effective agents to control fertility in

populations of mammals and birds involved in human-wildlife conflicts.

Researchers are also seeking ways to improve the delivery of

contraceptives to wildlife, through, for example, darts or bio-bullets. Some

species, however, such as deer, live for a dozen or more years. Using

contraceptives to address the problem now that the deer population has

surged will mean a long delay before relief can be obtained. Consequently,

a researcher stated that such species’ populations should probably first be

“culled” and then treated with a reproductive inhibitor.

Following are some examples of reproductive control projects recently

completed or underway that may lead to the development of more

effective nonlethal means of controlling predators on farms and ranches,

as well as problem wildlife in urban areas:

• Researchers recently completed a 5-year study on reproductive

intervention strategies for managing coyote predation. The goals of the

study were to (1) determine whether sheep losses could be reduced by

sterilizing coyotes in territories where sheep and other livestock are

pastured and (2) develop and transfer information critical to the

registration and/or practical application of sterilant technologies and

pharmaceutical products. In addition to determining whether sterilized

coyotes kill fewer sheep than do coyotes with pups to feed, researchers

evaluated whether surgical sterilization changed the coyotes’ territorial or

affiliate behaviors. After extensive field tests, researchers concluded that

sterilization reduced, but did not eliminate, coyote predation on sheep.

• Center scientists are working to tailor an oral contraceptive, Nicarbazin,

so that it can be given to geese. They are focusing on developing a more

 25Wildlife Services considers research aimed at improving traps and snares—such as pantension devices to preclude capture of smaller nontarget animals in foothold traps—to be

nonlethal efforts. However, the Humane Society contends that the end result of using such

traps is that the predator is killed and that, therefore, categorizing such research as

nonlethal is misleading.
Page 40 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

palatable bait to deliver the contraceptive, delaying release of the

contraceptive into the bird’s body, and determining effective dose levels.

• Center scientists are working with a rodent immunocontraceptive, GnRH,

which is a hormone vaccine. Officials in a California city have asked for

help in controlling ground squirrels that are creating a problem on area

beaches. Local laws prohibit poisoning or relocating nuisance animals

such as the ground squirrels; consequently, officials are using the rodent

immunocontraceptive to resolve the problem.

• Wildlife Services researchers received FDA approval to assist in a study

trial of a single-shot delivery of PZP (porcine zona pellucida), an injectiondelivered contraceptive, for use on deer. A large urban area in Ohio has

requested assistance in controlling its deer population in city parks and

has agreed to be the host site for the proposed PZP study trial.

The research program also provides data pertaining to pesticide and drug

registrations to EPA and FDA. For example, an application for new

registration has been submitted to EPA for methiocarb, a bird repellent.

To support the application, researchers submitted data required by EPA

for future product registrations. In addition, other program specialists are

engaged in projects involving the development of global information

system (GIS) applications, statistical and monitoring methods, and

electronics designs for use in wildlife damage management.

Developing nonlethal control methods is a challenge that involves further

research on such tools as chemical repellents and contraceptives. This

challenge also involves biological and behavioral science research

focusing on the differences both among species and within a single

species. However, the nature of scientific research is such that while many

research projects are undertaken, relatively few yield effective, marketable

results. Moreover, research that looks promising at the outset often

encounters problems that cannot be overcome easily. Such has been the

case with nonlethal control research. Many nonlethal controls work well,

but only in certain situations or locations, and some work only

temporarily.

According to researchers, certain chemicals show promise as nonlethal

repellents. For example, the center developed methyl anthranilate—a

chemical that smells like grape soda—which is repugnant to geese and is

applied to ponds and grassy areas to repel geese from golf courses,

airstrips, and public parks. Although the use of this chemical appears

promising, it must be reapplied frequently to be effective. In other cases,

Past Efforts to Develop

Nonlethal Controls Have

Met With Limited Success
Page 41 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

chemical research that looked promising has not come to fruition. For

example, in one research project, researchers laced lamb carcasses with

lithium chloride, a chemical that causes coyotes to vomit. Researchers

thought that this chemical showed promise in early laboratory and field

tests as a means of conditioning coyotes not to kill lambs. However, while

the coyotes in the field tests learned not to eat lambs, they continued to

kill them. Another chemical that causes a predator to feel sick is Mesurol.

This chemical has proven to be an effective deterrent on ravens, predators

of bird eggs such as those of the endangered least tern. The center is

working on other nonlethal chemical products such as alpha-chloralose.

This chemical is an FDA-approved immobilizing agent that researchers are

using to capture waterfowl so that identification bands or radio collars can

be attached to the birds as part of research studies. Alpha-chloralose is

also used to facilitate removal of nuisance animals such as ducks and

geese that have found their way into swimming pools or city reservoirs.

The presence of geese in these areas is a serious potential health hazard

because of bacteria found in goose fecal matter.

In other instances, deterrence devices that appeared to be promising in the

lab and during initial testing, such as the Electronic Guard predator scare

device, have not received widespread acceptance for use on farms and

ranches. The research center’s product development program manager

stated her belief that the Electronic Guard, which emits both a bright light

and a loud noise to scare coyotes, could be highly effective if used

correctly. She said purchasers need to use several of them at random

intervals to be effective. Unfortunately, each one is fairly expensive.

However, an operations official in Utah told us the Electronic Guard is not

particularly useful in his state. He pointed out that the Electronic Guard

technology is outdated—utilizing a bulky 12-volt battery—and

consequently the device is not very easily transported to Utah’s remote

grazing locations, because it does not fit into a saddlebag. The official

expressed his belief that the Electronic Guard has potential for other uses,

such as deterring deer and other wildlife.

Other nonlethal control methods that employ traditional “scare” devices

such as pop-up scarecrows, flashing lights, pyrotechnics, and noisemakers

are also useful in managing birds. Mylar tape works well, too, because

light reflecting off the tape apparently frightens the birds. With most such

techniques, however, the birds adapt within a relatively short period of

time and the measure is no longer effective. Consequently, adjunct

techniques must be used.
Page 42 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Lasers are one of the newest scare techniques to show great promise in

bird control. According to center researchers in Sandusky, Ohio, the use of

lasers has proven effective in dispersing certain species of birds. For

example, lasers have worked quite well in low light conditions (after

sunset) with geese, double-crested cormorants, and Hawaiian stilts, which

shy away from the beam of light emitted by the laser. In a test in Ohio, for

instance, lasers were effective in scaring away—within 15 minutes—

approximately 18,000 geese at a municipal lake. Because the laser is silent

and can be selectively directed at a particular species of bird, the laser is

preferable to loud devices where disturbance of people and other wildlife

is a concern. Wildlife Services has developed a helium neon gas laser that

costs less than $1,000. The beam can extend for a quarter of a mile. The

French are marketing a similar laser for animal control for about $7,700.

Bird necropsies have shown no damage from lasers, even at 1 meter.

Nevertheless, some animal rights groups are protesting their use.

Other nonlethal control approaches can be directed at disrupting the

animals’ behavior without scaring them. One such nonlethal bird control is

“pond gridding,” which involves the placement of gridwire over ponds to

prevent landings by geese and other birds. Wildlife Services staff also

provide advice to homeowners and commercial building owners on how to

alter the structure of buildings to discourage birds from roosting on them.

For example, ledges can be boxed in, and spiky steel “porcupine wire” can

be placed on ledges to dissuade landings. However, birds sometimes figure

out how to build nests right on top of the spiky wire, so other devices may

be needed in conjunction with the wire.

Supplemental feeding is another nonlethal control directed at changing an

animal’s damage-causing behavior without frightening the animal.

According to researchers, this approach looks promising for bears that are

coming out of hibernation when little food is available. In the Pacific

Northwest, bears resort to stripping the bark from trees to eat its sweet

inner surface, which kills large sections of forest. Experiments have

shown that providing bears with sugar cane deters them from damaging

the trees and may discourage their livestock predation as well. A

successful bear feeding program for the protection of timber has existed

for several years in Washington State. Unfortunately, the problem of bears’

predation on livestock is often more difficult to resolve. According to a

Wildlife Services researcher, even when bears have ample alternate food

supplies, they simply seem to prefer lambs and ewes. However, in Utah

this past summer, the Wildlife Services state director coordinated with

various federal and state organizations and with the permittee to try a bear

feeder on a remote grazing allotment. The state director hopes that the use
Page 43 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

of the bear feeder, which contains molasses-sweetened dry pellets, will

help deter both livestock and wildlife kills by bears.

Wildlife Services has had limited success working to develop effective

nonlethal controls for beavers. In addition to landowners’ concerns about

beavers flooding timber and croplands, Wildlife Services receives

numerous requests to help cities deal with beaver problems at their

sewage treatment plants. For beavers, the main nonlethal device currently

in use is a water control device, developed at Clemson University, called a

Clemson Beaver Pond Leveler. The pond leveler design is intended to

suppress the problem of flooding by allowing water to drain through a

beaver dam or plugged road culvert, even if beavers build a dam at the

mouth of the culvert. The pond leveler is a simple, low-cost device that is

made largely from PVC pipe. Pond levelers work better in some

geographic locations than others. In North Carolina, Wildlife Services

installed seven pond levelers in 2000, with mixed results. The pond

levelers’ effectiveness was temporary at best: most failed within 12

months. The beavers either thwart the pond levelers by building their

dams 30 feet downstream, thereby backing up water and defeating the

purpose of the devices, or they dam up the pond leveler itself. According

to Wildlife Services officials, pond levelers seem to work better in

locations with hillier, steeper topography than North Carolina’s.

Relocation, a nonlethal control method, is rarely a viable option, for

several reasons. First, some animals such as beavers, white-tailed deer,

and resident Canada geese are considered to be overabundant, so finding a

suitable relocation habitat is difficult. Second, relocation is not always

effective or in the animal’s best interest. Some animals (e.g., bears) will

just return to their original habitat; relocated animals may die in their new

habitat because they are unfamiliar with the terrain and food sources or

because they are killed by competitors whose territories they have

invaded. Third, the risk of wildlife-borne disease sometimes makes people

reluctant to accept the relocation of wildlife to areas near their residences.

In fact, to help prevent the spread of disease, many states have laws

against relocating wildlife.

Most nonlethal control methods such as fencing, guard animals, and

animal husbandry practices are most appropriately implemented by the

livestock producers themselves, with technical assistance from Wildlife

Services. According to Wildlife Services officials, by the time producers

request assistance from the Wildlife Services program, they have typically

already been employing a variety of nonlethal control measures and are

experiencing predation on their livestock in spite of these measures.
Page 44 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Wildlife Services must use lethal control methods in situations where

nonlethal controls are ineffective, impractical, or unavailable.

We provided the Department of Agriculture with a draft of our report for

its review and comment. We received comments from officials of the

Wildlife Services program, including the Deputy Administrator and the

Associate Deputy Administrator. The officials agreed with the information

presented in the report. They said that the report was thorough and

unbiased, and that it competently communicated the need for and

complexities associated with wildlife management. The officials

acknowledged that there are many emerging wildlife damage concerns, as

presented in appendix IV of this report, that exceed the program’s current

ability to address, within current resources. In an effort to respond to

these emerging needs, Wildlife Services officials said they have at times

compromised the program’s infrastructure by providing services rather

than upgrading equipment and facilities. The officials said they are

committed to fixing the infrastructure problems while concurrently taking

steps to target current and future resources toward the most critical

emerging issues. The officials also provided a number of technical

corrections and clarifications to the draft report, which we incorporated

as appropriate.

We conducted our review from March 2001 through October 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Details of our scope and methodology are discussed in appendix I.

We are sending a copy of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture and

appropriate congressional committees. We will make copies available to

others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Director, Natural Resources and

 the Environment

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

In October 2000, the Conference Committee on the Department of

Agriculture’s fiscal year 2001 appropriations directed us to conduct a

study of the Department’s Wildlife Services program.1

 Specifically, we

agreed to determine (1) the nature and severity of threats posed by

wildlife, (2) the actions the program has taken to reduce such threats, (3)

the studies Wildlife Services and others have done to assess the specific

costs and benefits of program activities, and (4) the opportunities that

exist for developing effective nonlethal methods of predator control on

farms and ranches.

To obtain information about the damage caused by injurious wildlife and

the actions Wildlife Services takes to control such damage, we reviewed

program documents, research studies, and surveys such as the livestock

loss surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National

Agricultural Statistics Service. We gathered information on both the

operations and research arms of Wildlife Services. For the operations arm,

we visited Wildlife Services’ western and eastern regional offices and

offices in four states (two western and two eastern). For the research arm,

we visited Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center, in Fort

Collins, Colorado, and two of its field research stations (one western, near

Logan, Utah, and one eastern, in Sandusky, Ohio). The field research

station in Utah conducts mammal research; the station in Ohio, bird

research. At each of the regional and state offices we interviewed officials

and reviewed records such as cooperative agreements, program

evaluations, and budget and accounting documents. In selecting states to

visit, we strove for geographic diversity as well as a cross-section of the

program’s various operational emphases (e.g., protection of agriculture,

human health and safety, natural resources, and property). In each state

visited, we met with program clients (e.g., farmers, ranchers,

representatives of associations such as the Farm Bureau, and federal and

state wildlife management officials), and we accompanied Wildlife

Services personnel in the field to observe various activities such as

removing beaver dams and vaccinating raccoons. We also visited and

interviewed officials of the program’s Management Information System

Support Center, located in Fort Collins, Colorado, which tracks the

number and types of operational activities conducted.

To obtain information on the program’s costs and benefits, we conducted

literature searches; reviewed economic studies conducted by program

 1

The Committee’s direction was contained in Conference Report H.R. 106-948, p. 117.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

researchers, academicians, and others; and interviewed Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service economists who were involved in assessing

costs and benefits for the programmatic environmental impact statement.

We also discussed the costs and benefits of the Wildlife Services program

with program researchers, operations personnel, and cooperators.

To obtain information on nonlethal methods of controlling livestock

predators, we reviewed research studies and interviewed program

researchers and field operations personnel. At the program’s predation

ecology and behavioral applications field station, we attended a review of

current research on reproductive intervention strategies for managing

coyote depredation. We also discussed nonlethal control methods with

various livestock operators who were program clients, as well as with

representatives of industry associations (e.g., the Farm Bureau and wool

growers’ associations). Finally, we discussed nonlethal control methods

and general Wildlife Services operations with representatives of the

Humane Society of the United States and the Defenders of Wildlife.

We conducted our review from March 2001 through October 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 47 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

The Wildlife Services program, including its predecessor programs, has

evolved over the past century to meet the changing needs and desires of

society. This appendix, drawing from the history contained in the

program’s final environmental impact statement (EIS), addresses some of

the key events that have shaped the program over the years.

The first federal government involvement in wildlife damage control

efforts occurred in 1885, when the Department of Agriculture’s Branch of

Economic Ornithology sent questionnaires to farmers about damage

caused by birds. The following year the branch was elevated to division

status and renamed the Division of Economic Ornithology and

Mammalogy. The Commissioner of Agriculture stated that the new division

would be responsible for educating farmers about birds and mammals

affecting their interests so that the destruction of useful species might be

prevented. Efforts to educate farmers included conducting studies and

demonstrations of wildlife damage control techniques in the western

United States and testing poisons for control of the house sparrow.

Between 1905 and 1907, the program, by then named the Bureau of

Biological Survey, investigated and published methods for coyote and wolf

control in conjunction with the Forest Service. At the same time, western

livestock interests began voicing opposition to fees levied by the federal

government for livestock grazing on federal lands in areas with high

populations of coyotes and wolves.

As agricultural interests began to speak out, more attention was focused

on problems with wildlife. In 1913 direct assistance work began under a

small administrative allotment of funds to control plague-bearing rodents

in California national forests. During the following year, the first

cooperative agreement was signed by the president of the New Mexico

College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts and the Secretary of

Agriculture. In 1914 the Congress responded to the concerns of farmers

and ranchers by appropriating funds for experiments and demonstrations

on predator control. The first congressional appropriation for federal

predator control operations came in 1915, when the Congress

appropriated $125,000 to the Bureau of Biological Survey to control

wolves and coyotes.

The 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain for the

Protection of Migratory Birds and its enabling legislation, the 1918

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, authorized the issuance of permits for the

taking of migratory birds that were injurious to agriculture and other

interests.

Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 48 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

The need for improved methods and techniques for the control of

predators and rodents led to the establishment of a laboratory in

Albuquerque, New Mexico, for experimentation with poisons. In 1921 this

laboratory, called the Eradication Methods Laboratory, was moved to

Denver. Years later, this facility would become known as the National

Wildlife Research Center, located today in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Although the need for wildlife damage control efforts was acknowledged

by the Congress, some felt the federal program was unnecessary. In 1930

the American Society of Mammalogists issued a strong statement of

opposition to the federal predator control program. This nearly caused the

cancellation of the $1 million congressional appropriation for predator and

rodent control. But in 1931, after full congressional hearings, a bill was

passed by the Congress and signed by President Hoover giving the federal

government authority to conduct wildlife damage control activities. This

bill became the Act of March 2, 1931, and remains the primary statutory

authority under which the current Wildlife Services program operates.

In 1934, the Congress appropriated funds to buy property in Pocatello,

Idaho, for a facility to produce baits for the predator and rodent control

programs. The facility opened in 1936 as the Pocatello Supply Depot,

which remains an integral part of the current program.

In 1939, under President Franklin Roosevelt’s government reorganization

plan, Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey and Commerce’s Bureau of

Fisheries were transferred to the Department of the Interior, forming the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All wildlife damage control functions were

transferred to Interior’s new Branch of Predator and Rodent Control. The

reorganization was part of President Roosevelt’s attempt to consolidate

within the Interior Department all federal activities dealing primarily with

wildlife. This presented the Fish and Wildlife Service with the dual

objectives of both controlling and enhancing certain wildlife species,

depending on the circumstances.

In 1946, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 was amended to

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with other federal,

state, and public or private agencies in minimizing damage caused by

“overabundant” species. In 1948 the Lea Act was passed, authorizing the

program to purchase or rent up to 20,000 acres in California for the

management and control of migratory waterfowl. That same year, a

worldwide shortage of cereal foods prompted the Congress to appropriate

funds for Agriculture and Interior to become involved with rat control. The

Predator and Rodent Control program conducted extensive rodent control
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 49 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

activities that further established wildlife damage control efforts in the

eastern United States.

The federal animal damage control program operated in relative obscurity,

with little public opposition, during the 1940s and 1950s. By then the

program comprised several components, including research, technical

assistance, and both lethal and nonlethal direct assistance activities. The

type of assistance provided depended on the location, the local

institutions, and the resource being protected.

In the 1960s, however, growing environmental awareness brought the

program under closer scrutiny. The use of poisons to kill predators

increasingly came under criticism, even from traditionally conservative

interests such as editors of national hunting and fishing magazines.

In 1963, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall appointed a group called

the Advisory Board on Wildlife Management to investigate federal wildlife

damage control efforts. The Board published a report in 1964 officially

entitled “Predator and Rodent Control in the United States” (Leopold et al.

1964), but the report is more commonly referred to as the Leopold report,

named after A. Starker Leopold, Chairman of the Advisory Board. The

report was critical of the animal damage control program in many ways,

charging it with indiscriminate, nonselective, and excessive predator

control. For example, the report stated that the leghold trap was

nonselective, meaning it was apt to capture non-target species, resulting in

unnecessary loss of wildlife.

Recommendations of the Leopold report were incorporated in the 1969

Animal Damage Control program’s policy manual. For example,

professionally trained personnel were added to the program, in-service

training for long-time employees was instituted, nearly all predator control

practices were reduced, and regulation and supervision of toxicants were

tightened.

Predator control continued to be the focus of public attention. In 1971,

spurred by lawsuits from animal welfare groups over the program’s use of

toxicants, the Secretary of the Interior and the President’s Council on

Environmental Quality appointed a seven-person Advisory Committee on

Predator Control. The report of that committee, like the Leopold report,
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 50 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

took on the name of its chairman, Stanley Cain.1 The Cain report stated

that the use of chemicals is likely to be inhumane and nonselective, and it

recommended that landowners be trained in the use of leghold traps as a

major method of predator damage control. The report was generally

critical of federal predator control efforts, and outlined 15

recommendations for changes in the federal program. Among the

recommendations was that immediate congressional action be sought to

remove all toxic chemicals from registration and use for direct predator

control.

In February 1972, as a result of the Cain report’s recommendations,

President Richard Nixon signed Executive Order 11643, restricting the use

of toxicants for predator control by federal agencies or for use on federal

lands. In compliance with the order, the Environmental Protection Agency

cancelled the registrations of several chemicals: Compound 1080,

strychnine, sodium cyanide, and thallium sulfate. In 1974, the program was

titled the Office of Animal Damage Control.

In 1975, President Nixon’s Executive Order 11643 was amended by

President Gerald Ford’s Executive Order 11870, to allow the experimental

use, for up to 1 year, of sodium cyanide to control coyote and other

predatory mammal or bird damage to livestock on federal lands or in

federal programs. Order 11643 was again amended in 1976 by Executive

Order 11917 to allow the operational use of sodium cyanide for predator

control on certain federal lands or in federal programs.2

In 1978, the Secretary of the Interior appointed an Animal Damage Control

Policy Study Committee to review the federal Animal Damage Control

program. This committee, too, was very critical of the program, saying it

found insufficient documentation to justify the program’s existence. As a

result of this report, and related public hearings, the Department of the

Interior prepared a December 1978 report “Predator Damage in the West:

 1

S.A. Cain, J.A. Kadlec, D.L. Allen, R.A. Cooley, M.C. Hornocker, A.S. Leopold, and F.H.

Wagner, “Predator Control—1971,” Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1972.

2

Use of sodium cyanide was still prohibited in: (1) areas where endangered or threatened

animal species might be adversely affected; (2) areas of the National Park System; (3) areas

of the National Wildlife Refuge System; (4) areas of the National Wilderness Preservation

System; (5) areas within National Forests or other federal lands specifically set aside for

recreational use; (6) prairie dog towns; (7) National Monument areas; and (8) any areas

where exposure to the public and family pets is probable.
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 51 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

A Study of Coyote Management Alternatives.” This report summarized all

pertinent information and was developed to serve as a source document

for consideration by the Secretary in making decisions about the program.

The Committee’s report led to a policy statement issued by Secretary of

the Interior Cecil Andrus in November 1979, which stopped the practice of

denning (i.e., finding and killing coyote pups at their dens) and research on

the use of the chemical Compound 1080. The policy was an attempt to

emphasize the use of nonlethal control methods.

Adverse reactions to Secretary Andrus’ policy were expressed in a January

1980 memo by the Western Regional Coordinating Committee, composed

of 28 university research and extension personnel and various Agriculture

and Interior employees. The committee members were concerned that the

policy showed minimal understanding of livestock industry problems and

minimal knowledge of the realities of predator losses and control. The

Committee’s concerns reflected a growing opinion that the Animal

Damage Control function would be better served if it were administered

by the Department of Agriculture.

In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency held hearings on the

predator control issues. At the same time, Secretary of the Interior James

Watt rescinded former Secretary Andrus’ policy statement that banned

denning. In January 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12342,

which revoked President Nixon’s Executive Order 11643 (banning the use

of toxicants), as amended.

In an amendment to the 1986 continuing federal budget resolution, the

Congress transferred all Animal Damage Control program personnel,

equipment, and funding from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the

Department of Agriculture. By April 1986, transfer of all personnel and

resources had been completed. Specifically, the Animal Damage Control

program was placed in the Department’s Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS).

Also in 1986, the National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee,

comprised of agricultural producers, environmental and animal welfare

organizations, and academic institutions, was appointed by the Secretary

of Agriculture to provide advice on policies and issues of concern to the

Animal Damage Control program. At the end of 1987, the Congress, in

Public Law 100-202, authorized the program to conduct control activities

of nuisance mammals and birds and those that are reservoirs for zoonotic

diseases (i.e., diseases that can be passed to people). In 1991, the Congress

authorized the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to undertake a
Appendix II: Evolution of the Wildlife

Services Program

Page 52 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

pilot program to control the brown tree snake on Guam. Since 1993

Wildlife Services has conducted a brown tree snake damage management

program on Guam, in cooperation with the Department of Defense, the

Department of the Interior, and the governments of Guam and Hawaii.

In June 1990, the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the

Animal Damage Control program was released for public comment. The

supplement to the draft EIS, which contained revisions, additional

information, and analyses developed in response to comments received,

was released for public comment in January 1993. Based on comments

received, two additional alternatives and more information were included

in the April 1994 final EIS, which provided the basis for future direction of

the program.

In 1997, the program’s name was changed to Wildlife Services. That same

year, the program relocated its laboratory headquarters and established

the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. In 2000,

the Congress amended Wildlife Services’ authority under the Act of March

2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426). The amendment removed specific language that,

according to Wildlife Services officials, reflected outdated program goals

and philosophy, such as to “. . . promulgate the best methods of

eradication . . . of mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, . . .“ and to “. . . conduct

campaigns for the destruction . . . of such animals.” The revised section of

the act now authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “. . . conduct a

program of wildlife services with respect to injurious animal species and

take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting the

program. The Secretary shall administer the program in a manner

consistent with all of the wildlife services authorities in effect on the day

before October 28, 2000.”

According to the EIS, the close scrutiny the program has received over the

years, together with internal reviews and strategic planning, has resulted

in the program’s continual evolution. Increasing emphasis has been placed

on the development and implementation of a variety of damage control

methods, including multiple forms of technical assistance and direct

assistance services. Also, the program has sought to increase its staff’s

professionalism and training, to improve its data systems and its

relationships with other wildlife management agencies, and to emphasize

research and development of new control methods. In consideration of

contemporary societal values, the program seeks an acceptable balance

between human interests and wildlife needs.
Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Page 53 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

This appendix contains details of Wildlife Services’ fiscal year 2000

expenditures for its administrative costs, operational activities, and

research activities. Wildlife Services’ total fiscal year 2000 expenditures

were $80.6 million. Of these expenditures, about $42.3 million (including

just over half a million specifically earmarked for aquaculture) was funded

by Wildlife Services’ appropriation; the other $38.3 million was funded by

clients (i.e, by cooperative dollars).

Administrative expenditures totaled about $9.5 million and included a

variety of activities such as administrative support, employee

development, and Management Information System (MIS) support. Table 3

shows the breakout of administrative expenditures, funded solely with

federal dollars.

Table 3: Wildlife Services’ Administrative Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2000

Administrative category Millions of dollars

Department (United States Department of Agriculture) charges $1.5

Agency (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) overhead 3.4

Headquarters support and program investment (e.g., MIS support

and employee development)

3.2

Eastern and Western Regional Offices 1.4

Source: Wildlife Services.

In fiscal year 2000, the Wildlife Services program spent almost $60 million

on operational activities. Of that amount, about $23 million was from

Wildlife Services appropriations; the other $36 million was contributed by

cooperators (program clients). Table 4 shows the program’s fiscal year

2000 operational expenditures, by state and by source (i.e., Wildlife

Services or cooperators).

Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Administrative

Expenditures

Operational Expenditures
Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Page 54 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 4: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures, by State and Funding Source,

Fiscal Year 2000

State

Federal (Wildlife

Services) funding

Cooperative

funding Total

Alabama $204,859 $292,671 $497,530

Alaska 129,796 730,573 860369

Arkansas 252,084 266,441 518,525

Arizona 423,222 434,826 858,048

California 1,458,860 3,389,125 4,847,985

Colorado 746,133 470,306 1,216,439

Connecticut 37,000 5,407 42,407

Delaware 1,684 0 1,684

District of Columbia 102 0 102

Florida/Puerto Rico 205,394 383,355 588,749

Georgia 112,000 149,718 261,718

Hawaii 155,000 1,283,322 1,438,322

Idaho 713,796 613,148 1,326,944

Iowa 23,721 59,593 83,314

Illinois 104,236 536,000 640,236

Indiana 94,158 41,179 135,337

Kansas 49,518 85,793 135,311

Kentucky 158,910 442,310 601,220

Louisiana 352,095 327,535 679,630

Maine 132,133 246,147 378,280

Massachusetts 47,175 93,082 140,257

Maryland 101,233 158,197 259,430

Michigan 95,229 90,374 185,603

Minnesota 201,427 47,554 248,981

Mississippi 845,264 790,859 1,636,123

Missouri 158,753 195,160 353,913

Montana 1,139,067 1,705,032 2,844,099

Nebraska 333,797 315,425 649,222

Nevada 772,618 824,929 1,597,547

New Hampshire 284,672 230,672 515,344

New Jersey 120,653 228,598 349,251

Pennsylvania 61,915 95,646 157,561

New York 383,858 342,521 726,379

New Mexico 1,226,520 1,027,238 2,253,758

North Carolina 180,965 1,124,000 1,304,965

North Dakota 730,996 518,012 1,249,008

Ohio 581,456 7,835 589,291

Oklahoma 746,621 1,679,374 2,425,995

Oregon 918,791 1,197,022 2,115,813

Rhode Island 8,328 17,495 25,823
Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Page 55 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State

Federal (Wildlife

Services) funding

Cooperative

funding Total

South Carolina 173,916 493,577 667,493

South Dakota 325,222 1,135,074 1,460,296

Tennessee 158,910 486,563 645,473

Texas 2,645,488 6,828,214 9,473,702

Utah 948,371 1,115,755 2,064,126

Virginia 166,684 631,478 798,162

Vermont 176,803 47,444 224,247

Washington 531,887 1,340,674 1,872,561

Wisconsin 511,687 1,291,189 1,802,876

West Virginia 281,320 220,658 501,978

Wyoming 946,182 645,977 1,592,159

Guam 115,364 1,751,622 1,866,986

Total $21,275,873 $36,434,698 $57,710,571

Source: Wildlife Services.

In addition to the $21,275,873 of federal funding allocated specifically for

state operations, approximately $2 million of funding managed at the

regional level was available for state operations use. According to a

Wildlife Services official, the additional amount is managed at the regional

office level.

The program spends the majority of its operational funds on activities to

protect agriculture; in fiscal year 2000, cooperators contributed about 60

percent of these funds. Figure 4 shows Wildlife Services’ fiscal year 2000

operational expenditures, by category (the program’s various operational

emphases).
Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Page 56 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Figure 4: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures, by Program Category, Fiscal

Year 2000

Source: Wildlife Services data.

Wildlife Services also tracks subcategories of operational expenditures.

Within each program category are several subcategories of expenses. For

example, the agriculture category includes expenditures for the protection

of livestock, crops, forest/range, and aquaculture. Cooperators provide the

majority—over 60 percent in fiscal year 2000—of the funds spent on

livestock protection. Table 5 shows the program’s fiscal year 2000

agriculture expenditures, by subcategory.
Appendix III: Program Expenditures, by

Source, State, and Activity

Page 57 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 5: Wildlife Services’ Operational Expenditures for Agriculture, by

Subcategory, Fiscal Year 2000

Agriculture subcategory Federal and cooperative funding

Livestock $23,369,093

Crops 4,632,556

Forest/Range 2,887,121

Aquaculture 1,053,743

Total $31,942,513

Source: Wildlife Services.

Wildlife Services’ expenditures for its research activities totaled

$12,226,694 in fiscal year 2000. Wildlife Services covered the majority of

these expenditures with $10,357,000; cooperator funding accounted for the

remaining $1,869,694.

Research Expenditures
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 58 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Table 6 provides examples, by state, of the wildlife that pose challenges,

the resources they damage, and emerging concerns about wildlife damage.

For each state, only a few examples are given (of injurious wildlife and the

damage they do); many more problems than these exist in each state. The

examples do not include the risk to human health and safety posed by

birds at airports. This risk is excluded because it exists in every state, and

Wildlife Services performs control activities in every state. In some states,

though, particularly coastal ones, the risk to human health and safety

posed by migratory birds and the risk of their colliding with aircraft is

already significant and is growing.

Table 6: Examples of Resources Damaged by Injurious Wildlife, and Related Emerging Concerns, by State

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Alabama Fish-eating birds (e.g.,

cormorants, pelicans,

herons, egrets)

Beavers

Catfish ($4 million)

Timber ($19 million), transportation

infrastructure

Wildlife diseases pose greater threats to

humans, livestock, and pets; populations

of fish-eating birds continue to increase;

and diminished sport trapping is adding to

the increase in beaver populations.

Alaska Arctic foxes Aleutian Canada goose

(threatened), nesting seabirds

Increased air travel throughout the state,

coupled with immense populations of

migratory birds and other wildlife, has

created an urgent need for state and

federal management of wildlife threats.

Also, farmers and ranchers need

assistance with damage from birds and

predators.

Arizona Coyotes, black bears,

mountain lions

Blackbirds

Livestock

Dairy cattle, feedlot cattle (disease

risk from contaminated feed and

water)

Increased human populations and

increased recreational use of public lands

emphasize the need to deal with risks of

wildlife disease transmission.

Arkansas Blackbirds

Fish-eating birds

Rice crops ($3.5 million)

Catfish ($2.3 million)

The growing rice and aquaculture

industries require additional protection

from the increasing populations of fisheating birds.

California Coyotes, black bears,

mountain lions

Birds, rodents

Feral cats, red foxes,

raccoons, coyotes,

striped skunks, raptors

Livestock (nearly $2 million)

Row crops, fruit and nut crops,

vineyards

Threatened or endangered species

(e.g., California red-legged frog,

salt marsh harvest mouse, Sierra

Nevada big horn sheep, Monterey

Bay western snowy plover)

Increased airline traffic and population

growth of many bird species has created

a greater need for wildlife control at

airports; the recent surge in the number of

direct attacks on humans creates an

increased need to protect humans from

large predators such as coyotes, black

bears, and mountain lions.

Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 59 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Colorado Coyotes Sheep and lambs ($1.5 million),

black-footed ferrets (endangered)

Human population growth, especially in

rural and semi-rural areas, creates an

increased potential for human-wildlife

conflicts.

Connecticut Starlings, blackbirds

Canada geese,

blackbirds, mute swans

Birds, bats, squirrels,

monk parakeets,

ospreys

Dairy cattle (salmonella risk from

contaminated feed and water)

Vegetable crops, cranberries

Buildings, landscaping, utilities

Preventing wildlife-borne diseases from

affecting humans and livestock has

become a growing concern with the

recent outbreaks of rabies, West Nile

virus, salmonella, and E. coli; increased

air travel and growing bird populations

also call for increased wildlife control at

airports.

Delaware Snow geese

Canada geese

Coastal salt marsh habitat

Grain crops, golf courses ($75,000)

West Nile virus is a major health concern.

In fiscal year 2000, Delaware reported

that four horses tested positive for the

virus. Growth in air travel, coupled with

growth in deer and bird populations, has

created a greater need for wildlife control

at airports.

Florida Raccoons, red foxes,

coyotes, feral hogs,

ghost crabs, armadillos

Foxes, coyotes, black

rats, skunks, raccoons,

snakes, armadillos,

dogs

Red foxes, rats,

coyotes, raccoons, feral

cats

Beavers

Threatened or endangered sea

turtles (e.g., leatherback, hawksbill,

loggerhead turtles)

Endangered beach mice (e.g.,

Perdido Key, Anastasia Island,

Choctawhatchee beach mice)

Threatened or endangered birds

(e.g., roseate tern, least tern,

Puerto Rican parrot)

Flooded timber lands, croplands,

roadways ($620,000)

Wildlife continue to threaten the safety of

air travelers at many airports, but

resource constraints have prevented

Wildlife Services from resolving the

hazards; livestock producers suffer losses

from coyote and vulture predation, and

direct assistance from Wildlife Services,

rather than advice, would help reduce

these losses.

Georgia Armadillos, raccoons,

coyotes

Beavers

Resident Canada

geese, white-tailed deer

Ground-nesting birds (e.g.,

bobwhite quail)

Landscapes, pastures, timber,

sanitation lines, culverts, highways,

wells ($152,000)

Crops, property, neighborhood

landscapes and gardens

Increased habitat loss, human population

growth, and the adaptability of many

wildlife species to human environments

increase the need for professional

resolution of wildlife problems. Of concern

are deer, geese, beavers, vultures,

cormorants, pigeons, feral hogs, and

raccoons.

Hawaii Feral goats, sheep,

pigs, deer

Tree frogs

Rats

Endangered waterbirds, plants

Horticulture, parrots, Axis deer

Agricultural products, native plants,

seabirds, turtles

The state is concerned about the time and

expense involved in complying with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(conducting environmental analyses of

Wildlife Services’ actions performed for

nonfederal cooperators), and the

associated administrative requirements.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 60 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Idaho Coyotes, black bears,

mountain lions, wolves,

red foxes

Ravens, coyotes,

badgers, red foxes

Sheep, lambs ($1.5 million)

Sage grouse, endangered northern

Idaho ground squirrels

Efforts to control crop damage by the

sandhill crane have been limited by the

lack of resources. Populations of ravens

and red foxes have increased, to the

detriment of the sage grouse.

Illinois Canada geese, whitetailed deer

European starlings

Private and municipal property

Private and industrial property, risk

of disease (histoplasmosis)

Bird predation at fish production

facilities—an emerging agricultural

industry in Illinois—is a concern, as is the

transmission of wildlife-borne diseases

such as West Nile virus.

Indiana Canada geese

Starlings

Private and industrial property

($169,000 in property damage

reported in fiscal year 2000)

Property damage (e.g., buildings

and equipment), risk of disease

(histoplasmosis)

Over 12,000 people used Indiana’s tollfree wildlife conflicts hotline during its first

2 years of service, preventing an

estimated $100,000 in wildlife damage;

now an additional person is needed to

respond to calls.

Iowa Coyotes

Beavers

Sheep, cattle, hogs ($20,000 in

confirmed losses to coyotes)

Roads, crops, bridges

Requests for assistance continue to

increase, especially in regard to livestock

predators (especially coyotes) and

beavers.

Kansas Blackbirds (grackles,

starlings, cowbirds)

Livestock feed (more than

$660,000 in damage at three

feedlots during a recent winter)

Wildlife Services’ success in addressing

blackbird problems at feedlots has fueled

demand for similar services statewide.

Kentucky Starlings, Canada

geese

Agriculture, residential and

industrial property, aquaculture,

golf courses, parks, utility

structures

Increased urbanization and expansion

into formerly rural areas, coupled with

escalating wildlife populations, have led to

a rise in wildlife-human conflicts.

Louisiana Blackbirds, cowbirds,

egrets, cormorants,

white pelicans, herons

Beavers

Sprouting rice ($5 million to $10

million a year in damage),

strawberries, pecans, crawfish,

catfish

Threatened Louisiana pearlshell (a

mussel), timber, roadways, bridges,

public utilities. Nearly $5 million in

beaver-caused losses was reported

between 1998 and 2000.

Increased damage by birds is becoming

more difficult to control, despite the more

than $17 million spent annually by

aquaculture facilities throughout the state.

Beavers are another source of increasing

wildlife damage in the state.

Maine Birds, deer, moose,

raccoons, skunks, black

bears

Beavers

Blueberries, strawberries,

vegetable crops, beehives,

campsites, summer homes, fences

Commercial timberlands, municipal

roads, highways

Increasing predation from a rising

cormorant population is harming the

commercial, pen-raised Atlantic salmon

industry and is thought to be the primary

cause of the dwindling wild Atlantic

salmon population.

Maryland Canada geese, vultures Crops, waterfront properties The state has an increased need to

protect humans, their pets, and livestock

from wildlife-borne diseases. Rabies and

West Nile virus are two major health

concerns on the East Coast.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 61 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Massachusetts Canada geese,

blackbirds

Eider ducks, swans,

cormorants, gulls

Cranberries, vegetables, dairy feed

Trout hatcheries, shellfish

Preventing the spread of wildlife-borne

diseases to humans and livestock is a

growing concern, given the recent

outbreaks of rabies, West Nile virus,

salmonella, Giardia, and E. coli.

Michigan Starlings

Gray wolves

(endangered)

Deer

Dairies, feedlots

Livestock

Bovine tuberculosis in cattle

(projected impact to the state’s

producers is $121 million over 10

years)

Wolf populations will likely increase and

expand from the Upper to the Lower

Peninsula, causing increased demand for

prompt and professional response in wolf

management services. Also, demand for

help in reducing damage by congregating

starlings has grown significantly.

Minnesota Gray wolves

Beavers

Cattle, horses, sheep, poultry, dogs

Private property, roads, timber, fish

habitat

As the wolf population continues to

expand, the need for Wildlife Services’

professional assistance is expected to

increase. Nuisance bear complaints are

also increasing.

Mississippi Double-crested

cormorants, American

white pelicans

Beavers

Black bears

Aquaculture (about $5 million)

Roads, bridges, drainage

structures, agricultural fields,

private property, timber (several

million dollars a year in damage)

Beehives, crops, private property

Feral hogs are causing more crop

damage and posing a disease threat

(pseudorabies) for the domestic hog

industry. Canada geese and black bears

are becoming a growing concern for

property owners.

Missouri Beavers, muskrats

Blackbirds, herons

Canada geese

Crops, roads, levees

Rice crops, aquaculture

Crops, lawns, golf courses (more

than $122,000 in turf and crop

damage in fiscal year 2000)

The state’s resident Canada goose

population has quadrupled since 1993,

causing increased damage; the feral hog

population is also increasing, and the

state needs Wildlife Services’ help with

this problem.

Montana Grizzly bears, Rocky

Mountain gray wolves

(threatened or

endangered)

Livestock (predators caused a $1.1

million loss to state’s sheep

industry in 2000)

With the successful reintroduction and

recovery of Rocky Mountain gray wolves

in nearby states, Montana Wildlife

Services expects a growing demand for

its expertise in handling wolf-related

livestock predation issues.

Nebraska Coyotes, foxes,

mountain lions, bobcats

Prairie dogs

Blackbirds

Livestock

Rangeland

Feedlots

Areas requiring increased attention

include wildlife management at airports,

livestock predation, and public protection

from wildlife-borne diseases. Increased

public awareness of Wildlife Services’

professional role in these issues has

increased the demand for its services.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 62 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Nevada Rodents

Coyotes, mountain lions

Public health risk of sylvatic plague

(wild form of bubonic plague)

Livestock; humans and pets in

urban areas

Aviation safety is a growing concern.

Population growth and city development

around Nevada’s major airports has

created an ideal habitat for migratory birds

such as Canada geese, mallard ducks,

and American coots.

New Hampshire Black bears

Deer

Woodchucks

Gulls

Apiaries, row crops, livestock

Apples, fruit crops, ornamental

shrubbery

Earthen dams and levees, wild

lupine (essential to the endangered

Karner blue butterfly)

Roseate and common tern

recolonization efforts

Controlling the spread of West Nile virus

is an emerging concern, along with rabies,

Lyme disease, salmonella, and chronic

wasting disease. Also, the 10-year trend

of increasing conflicts associated with

bears and bird feeding activities needs to

be addressed.

New Jersey Canada geese

Deer, blackbirds

Red foxes, raccoons,

opossums

Human health effects of goose

feces, human safety threats from

aggressive geese, crops, turf

Crops, fruit trees, vegetables

Threatened and endangered

shorebirds (e.g., piping plovers,

least terns, black skimmers)

The state’s large population of resident

Canada geese will pose increasing

challenges for the protection of human

health and safety, as well as property, at

schools, hospitals, airports, and urban

and suburban areas. The spread of West

Nile virus is another concern.

New Mexico Coyotes, cougars,

bobcats, black bears

Prairie dogs, pocket

gophers, ground

squirrels

Sandhill cranes, snow

geese

Livestock (losses in excess of $1.6

million in 1999)

Agricultural crops, pasture land,

turf, human health and safety

(nearly $500,000 in rodent damage

in fiscal year 2000)

Crops (e.g., alfalfa, chile, wheat)

Coyotes are becoming an increasing

problem in urban and suburban areas,

killing pets and other domestic animals

and posing safety risks to humans.

Wildlife Services’ assistance will be

needed to resolve conflicts between

humans and the black-tailed prairie dog, a

candidate threatened species.

New York Cormorants, gulls

Canada geese

Catfish, bait fish, crawfish, sport

fish

Property, crops

Bat and raccoon rabies remain a health

concern, and urban winter crow roosts are

emerging as a unique problem to city

residents, resulting in conflicts over

droppings, noise, odor, and fear

associated with zoonotic disease.

North Carolina Beavers Timber, crops, roads, drainage

systems, landscapes. In fiscal year

2000, Wildlife Services prevented

about $8.5 million in damage to

such resources: nearly $9 saved

for every $1 spent.

Threats to public safety, not only by

wildlife at airports, but also by the rapidly

growing beaver population, must be

addressed. A rabid beaver’s recent attack

on a human has increased public

awareness of this issue.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 63 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

North Dakota/

South Dakota

Coyotes, foxes

Blackbirds

Canada geese and

other waterfowl

Cattle, sheep, poultry

Sunflowers and other grain crops

(over $5 million in losses annually

in the upper Great Plains), feedlots

Grain crops (damage increased by

80 percent in 2000, resulting in

$162,000 in losses)

More work at airports is needed, and

concerns over the threat of rabies

transferring from skunks to humans or

domestic animals continues to be a

concern.

Ohio Coyotes, vultures

Raccoons

Rooftop nesting gulls

Blackbirds, Canada

geese

Cattle, sheep, poultry

Human health and safety

Property

Crops, property

Increasing populations of gulls, vultures,

and starlings are causing significant

human health and safety issues and crop

and property damage.

Oklahoma Beavers

Coyotes

Canada geese

Dams, timber, crops, roads, private

property

Cattle, sheep, goats, poultry

Crops (especially winter wheat)

Feral hogs cause many problems

(livestock predation, crop destruction);

Canada geese are growing in number and

are damaging crops.

Oregon Canada geese

Cougars

Black bears, beavers

Turf grass seed, other crops

Human safety (Wildlife Services

addressed 386 cougar complaints

in 2000; 118 involved threats to

humans)

Timber

Successful wolf reintroduction in Idaho

means future wolf conflicts with livestock

in Oregon. Wolves will hamper present

predator control efforts because control

tools and methods will be restricted

around wolves.

Pennsylvania Deer

Canada geese

Starlings

Human safety (automobile

collisions)

Landscape, crops (program

annually assists over 300 residents

with goose-related problems)

Livestock facilities

The state’s large population of resident

Canada geese will pose increasing

challenges over time, as will increasing

populations of deer, vultures, and gulls.

Emerging public health issues (e.g., West

Nile virus) will also be a challenge.

Rhode Island Canada geese, gulls,

crows, turkey vultures

Mute swans

Monk parakeets,

ospreys

Property, turf, vegetable crops

Pond water quality

Landscaping, utilities

The needs of some citizens are currently

unmet. Increasingly, the program is able

to respond to requests for assistance only

from entities that can fully fund it.

Preventing wildlife-borne diseases is a

growing concern.

South Carolina Beavers

White-tailed deer

Timber, crops, roads, levees, dams

Landscaping, human safety

(automobile collisions), human

health (tick-borne diseases)

The demand for beaver management has

overwhelmed the program, yet some

counties cannot afford to share the costs.

At the same time, the vulture population

and related complaints have increased.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 64 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

Tennessee Canada geese

Beavers

Vultures

Turf (at golf courses, parks, etc.)

Roads, bridges, timber, wildlife

management areas

Municipal utility structures,

residential property

The growing number and variety of

wildlife-human conflicts pose a challenge

to the program, especially in terms of

wildlife control at airports and urban

damage by large birds.

Texas Coyotes, foxes

Coyotes

Beavers

Blackbirds

Feral hogs

Human health (rabies)

Sheep and goats

Dams, dikes, railroad track beds,

timber, roads, pastures, crops

Citrus crops, rice, feedlot

operations

Agricultural crops, livestock

The feral hog population in the state

exceeds 1 million. Hogs damage many

crops (e.g., corn, rice, peanuts, hay), and

they prey on lambs, kids, fawns, and

ground nesting birds. Also, damage by

migratory birds (e.g., cattle egrets,

vultures, cormorants) has increased,

taxing the program’s response abilities.

Utah Coyotes, mountain

lions, black bears

Skunks, raccoons, feral

and urban waterfowl,

pigeons

Sheep and lambs (nearly $2 million

in losses in 1999, even with

controls in place), endangered

black-footed ferrets, sage grouse,

mule deer fawns

Human health and safety (threat of

rabies, raccoon roundworm,

salmonella, plague)

Demands for wildlife damage

management are increasing, yet the

program already has more requests than

it can address. Protection of native wildlife

continues to be of importance.

Vermont Raccoons

Starlings

Human health (rabies), threatened

Eastern spiney softshell turtle

Cattle feed at dairies

Wildlife diseases like West Nile virus,

Lyme disease, salmonella, and chronic

wasting syndrome continue to emerge

and need to be addressed.

Virginia Coyotes, black vultures

Beavers

Canada geese, crows,

vultures, starlings,

muskrats

Livestock

Roads, railroads

Urban and suburban property,

water quality, human health and

safety. (Canada geese are involved

in 26 percent of all requests for

program assistance in Virginia.)

Challenges include finding a way to

provide damage management services to

low- and middle-income people and

protecting Virginia’s rare natural

resources (e.g., the threatened piping

plover and Wilson’s plover).

Washington Northern pikeminnows,

gulls

Starlings, feral pigeons,

Canada geese, gulls

Coyotes

Threatened and endangered

salmon and steelhead

Bridges, buildings (bird feces are

corrosive to paint and metal), fruit

crops, public and private property,

human health (over $6 million a

year in damage to the fruit industry)

Livestock, endangered Columbian

white-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits

Increasing problems are caused by urban

Canada geese and by predators (damage

to livestock, agriculture, and forestry

resources), but program resources are

already strained.
Appendix IV: Examples of Injurious Wildlife,

the Resources They Damage, and Emerging

Concerns, by State

Page 65 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

State Injurious wildlife

Resource damaged (annual damage

estimate, if available) Emerging concerns

West Virginia Coyotes, vultures

Raccoons

Muskrats, beavers

Sheep, cattle, goats

Human health (rabies)

Levees and dams

With its limited resources, the program

concentrates on the highest priorities

(human health and safety). As a result,

though, program staff cannot make muchneeded on-site evaluations of wildlife

damage to property; rather, they make

recommendations based on telephone

interviews. Also, problems caused by

starlings and roosting birds need

attention.

Wisconsin Deer

Black bears

Beavers

Gray wolves

Canada geese

Crops (over $1 million a year in

damage)

Crops, property, human safety

Trout streams

Livestock, pets

Municipal and private property

The endangered gray wolf population has

grown from 34 wolves in 1990 to about

250 in 2000, and the wolf’s recovery is

considered a success. But problems, such

as depredation on livestock and pets,

have come with the wolf’s recovery. Also

problematic is the damage done by the

burgeoning population of resident Canada

geese, which now numbers over 70,000.

Wyoming Coyotes, black bears,

red foxes, mountain

lions, grizzly bears,

wolves

Skunks

Coyotes

Livestock (losses of over $5.6

million to predators in 2000)

Human health (rabies risk)

Black-footed ferrets

As wolf and grizzly bear populations

expand, new or different control methods

will be needed to prevent unnecessary

conflicts with them. Also, skunk rabies

seems to be spreading westward across

the state, and a program is needed to

contain it.

Guam Brown tree snakes Power transmission lines, poultry

and small animals, endangered

species (e.g., Vanikoro swiftlets,

Mariana crows, Guam fruit bats,

Guam rails, Micronesian

kingfishers), human health and

safety

The magnitude and complexity of the

work to control the brown tree snake pose

significant challenges, and the

administrative burden is increasing.

U.S. Virgin

Islands

Black rats

Roosting birds

Endangered sea turtles, migratory

birds, native vegetation

Human health concerns

Invasive species’ impacts on native plants

and animals is a major and growing

problem.

Source: Wildlife Services.
Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft

Strikes

Page 66 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

Through an interagency agreement with the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Wildlife Services maintains a database of all

reported wildlife strikes to U.S. civil aircraft and to foreign carriers that

experience strikes within the United States. The database contains about

34,000 strike reports from 1,100 airports for the period 1990 through 2000.

In 2000 alone, about 6,000 strikes were reported. Wildlife Services

estimates, however, that the number of strikes reported represents only

about 20 percent of those that have occurred.

The following examples from the database show the serious effects that

strikes by birds or other wildlife can have on aircraft. The examples are

not intended to highlight or criticize individual airports; strikes have

occurred at or near almost every airport in the United States. For more

information on wildlife strikes, visit www.birdstrike.org.

• In January 1990, a Hawker Siddeley aircraft struck several white-tailed

deer during takeoff from John Tune Airport in Tennessee. One deer was

completely ingested by the left engine. The impact tore the engine loose,

and the aircraft had to be replaced at a cost of $1.4 million.

• In November 1990, a Bae-3200 ingested doves in both engines during

takeoff from Michiana Regional Airport in Indiana. The engines were

destroyed, and the aircraft was out of service for 60 hours. The repair cost

was about $1 million.

• In November 1991, a DC-10’s number 1 engine ingested one or more

American crows during takeoff from Chicago O’Hare International Airport.

Parts of the engine came out the side and damaged the number 2 engine.

The aircraft made a precautionary landing.

• In December 1991, a Citation 550’s number 1 engine ingested one or two

turkey vultures during takeoff from Angelina County Airport in Texas. The

engine experienced an uncontained failure, a fire, and vibrations that

caused a 100-percent loss of thrust, causing the takeoff to be aborted. The

wing and fuselage received damage from engine shrapnel. The aircraft was

out of service for 2 weeks, at a repair cost of $552,500.

• In February 1992, a Piper 28 was just about to touch down on the runway

at Sandstone Airport in Minnesota when a deer ran toward the aircraft and

collided with it. The pilot added power and aborted the landing, but lost

power during the climb and crashed into trees and then into the ground

about a quarter-mile from the airport. The pilot was seriously injured; the

aircraft was destroyed.

Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft

Strikes
Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft

Strikes

Page 67 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

• In October 1992, a Boeing 747 struck numerous herring gulls during

takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. A gull

was ingested by an engine, bending four fan blades and causing the

aircraft to make a precautionary landing. The passengers departed on

another aircraft the next day. The reported cost—of hotel, lost revenue,

and repairs—was $750,000.

• In October 1993, a Boeing 757 struck about 35 cattle egrets on takeoff from

Orlando International Airport. Takeoff was aborted. Three tires on the

right side blew out, and the aircraft was towed to the gate. The ingestion of

10 to 12 birds damaged engine fan blades and the engine cowl.

• In December 1993, a Cessna 550 struck a flock of geese on its climbout

from DuPage Airport in Illinois. A loud bang occurred, followed by

unstable flight. The number 2 engine lost power, and the aircraft

experienced a substantial fuel leak on the left side. The pilot made a safe

emergency landing at Midway Airport. Both engines had to be replaced.

The aircraft was out of service for 90 days; the cost of repairs was

$800,000.

• In May 1994, a Bell BHT-47 helicopter crashed into the backyard of a

residence in Oklahoma, resulting in two fatalities. The pilot of another

helicopter, which had been traveling ahead of the one that crashed, said he

had warned the other pilot about a flock of birds which he himself had

avoided by banking sharply. The probable cause of the crash, according to

the National Transportation Safety Board, was the pilot’s loss of control

when he maneuvered abruptly to avoid colliding with the flock of birds.

• In July 1994, a Cessna 172 was seen flying about 200 feet above the water

along a beach in Florida. A pelican collided with the windshield; the

aircraft rolled upside down and hit the water. The pilot was fatally injured.

• In June 1995, a Concorde ingested a Canada goose into the number 3

engine upon landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The engine

suffered an uncontained failure, causing parts to go into the number 4

engine. Both engines were destroyed. The aircraft was out of service for 5

days; repair costs were over $9 million. In an out-of-court settlement 3

years later, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey paid Air

France $5.3 million in compensation for losses.

• In December 1995, on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport,

a Boeing 747 broke through a cloudbank and struck a flock of snow geese,
Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft

Strikes

Page 68 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

which sounded like sandbags hitting the aircraft. The impact destroyed

one engine, damaged several fan blades on another, and extensively

damaged the airframe. The repairs cost about $6 million.

• In July 1996, a Boeing 737 ingested an American kestrel into the left engine

upon takeoff from Nashville International Airport, resulting in a

compressor stall and an aborted takeoff. The aircraft overran the runway,

and the passengers were evacuated. One passenger was seriously injured;

four others received minor injuries.

• In October 1996, a Boeing 727 struck a flock of gulls just after takeoff from

Washington National Airport. An engine ingested at least one bird, began

to vibrate, and was shut down. A burning smell entered the cockpit, and an

emergency was declared. The aircraft, carrying Housing and Urban

Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and 52 other passengers, returned

to the airport and made a safe precautionary landing. Engine blades were

damaged.

• In January 1997, a McDonnell Douglas 80 struck over 400 blackbirds just

after takeoff from Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. Nearly every part of the

plane was hit. The pilot declared an emergency and returned to land

uneventfully. The number 1 engine had to be replaced, and damage to the

plane was substantial. The cost of repairs was about $219,000.

• In August 1997, a Boeing 737 struck 12 to 15 mallards after takeoff from

Portland International Airport in Oregon. The pilot returned to the airport

and landed safely. The radome and all engine fan blades had to be

replaced, at a cost of over $100,000.

• In May 1998, a Boeing 727 struck several Canada geese after takeoff from

Colorado Springs Metro Airport. The crew felt moderate to severe

vibration after the aircraft ingested one or more birds. The aircraft lost

essential electrical power, which was restored by a generator. The number

3 engine suffered an uncontained failure. Shrapnel was ejected through the

engine case, severing electrical wires and puncturing the anti-ice bleed air

duct. The radome, upper engine cowling, and thrust reverser were also

damaged. The aircraft was out of service for 98 hours; the repair cost was

$1.4 million.

• In November 1998, a Boeing 737 struck a buck deer on the runway when

taking off from Western Nebraska Regional Airport. The pilot proceeded

with the takeoff, but then returned to land. An engine suffered major

damage. The flight was canceled; the passengers and crew were rerouted
Appendix V: Examples of Wildlife-Aircraft

Strikes

Page 69 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

the next day. Total cost was $430,000 for repairs, lost revenue, meals and

hotel rooms, and other transportation for passengers.

• In February 1999, a Boeing 757 encountered a flock of European starlings

upon takeoff from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

The first officer tried to climb over the birds but struck several hundred of

them. Both engines ingested birds and were damaged; the repair cost was

about $500,000. More than 400 dead starlings were picked up from the

runway area following the strike.

• In December 1999, a Boeing 747 encountered a red-tailed hawk upon

takeoff from Toledo Express Airport in Ohio. The hawk struck the nose

bullet, which shattered and entered the engine. A witness called the sheriff

and reported hearing a large boom and seeing one of the engines on fire as

the aircraft took off. The pilot dumped fuel and returned to the airport to

land. Pieces of fan blades tore large holes in the nose cowling. Time out of

service was 84 hours; cost of repairs was $1.3 million.

• In March 2000, a Boeing 767 ingested a flock of Bonaparte’s gulls after

takeoff from Dulles International Airport. The pilot returned to the airport

and made a precautionary landing. Fan blades were damaged; the repair

cost was $65,000.

• In August 2000, a Boeing 747 flew through a flock of about 30 Canada

geese and ingested 1 or 2 in the number 1 engine after taking off from

Philadelphia International Airport. The high-speed aborted takeoff

resulted in nine flat tires; the aircraft was towed to the ramp. The engine

was a total loss, and the aircraft was out of service for 72 hours. The cost

was $3 million.
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 70 GAO-02-138 Wildlife Services Program

James R. Jones, Jr., (202) 512-9839

In addition to the individual named above, Carol Bray, Amy Sue Bunting,

Nancy Crothers, Brian Eddington, Jerilynn Hoy, Diane Lund, LuAnn Moy,

Cheryl Pilatzke, Pam Tumler, and Amy Webbink made key contributions

to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff

Acknowledgments

(360057)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (301) 413-0006

Fax: (202) 258-4066

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs